Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 12, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 53589 

Issued on: September 1, 2006. 

Nicole R. Nason, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 06–7501 Filed 9–7–06; 10:00 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–C 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

RIN 1018–AU32 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Designation of Critical 

Habitat for the Rota Bridled White-Eye 

(Zosterops rotensis) 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), are 

designating critical habitat for the Rota 

Bridled White-eye (Zosterops rotensis) 

pursuant to the Endangered Species Act 

of 1973, as amended (Act). In total, 

approximately 3,958 acres (ac) (1,602 

hectares (ha)) fall within the boundaries 

of the critical habitat designation on the 

Island of Rota, Commonwealth of the 

Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). 

DATES: This rule becomes effective on 

October 12, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: Comments and materials 

received, as well as supporting 

documentation used in the preparation 

of this final rule, will be available for 

public inspection, by appointment, 

during normal business hours, at the 

Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 300 Ala 

Moana Boulevard, Room 3–122, Box 

50088, Honolulu, HI 96850 (telephone 

808–792–9400). The final rule and 

economic analysis will also be available 

on the Internet at http://www.fws.gov/ 

pacificislands. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Patrick Leonard, Field Supervisor, 

Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, 

at the above address (telephone 808–

792–9400; facsimile 808–792–9581). 

Persons who use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD) may call the 

Federal Information Relay Service 

(FIRS) at 800–877–8339, 7 days a week 

and 24 hours a day. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Role of Critical Habitat in Actual 

Practice of Administering and 

Implementing the Act 

Attention to and protection of habitat 

is paramount to successful conservation 

actions. The role that designation of 

critical habitat plays in protecting 

habitat of listed species, however, is 

often misunderstood. As discussed in 

more detail below in the discussion of 

exclusions under the Act section 4(b)(2), 

there are significant limitations on the 

regulatory effect of designation under 

the Act section 7(a)(2). In brief, (1) 

Designation provides additional 

protection to habitat only where there is 

a Federal nexus; (2) the protection is 

relevant only when, in the absence of 

designation, destruction or adverse 

modification of the critical habitat 

would in fact take place (in other words, 

other statutory or regulatory protections, 

policies, or other factors relevant to 

agency decision-making would not 

prevent the destruction or adverse 

modification); and (3) designation of 

critical habitat triggers the prohibition 

of destruction or adverse modification 

of that habitat, but it does not require 

specific actions to restore or improve 

habitat. 

Currently, only 475 species, or 36 

percent of the 1,310 listed species in the 

U.S. under the jurisdiction of the 

Service, have designated critical habitat. 

We address the habitat needs of all 

1,310 listed species through 

conservation mechanisms such as 

listing, section 7 consultations, the 

section 4 recovery planning process, the 

section 9 protective prohibitions of 

unauthorized take, section 6 funding to 

the States, the section 10 incidental take 

permit process, and cooperative, 

nonregulatory efforts with private 

landowners. The Service believes that it 

is these measures that may make the 

difference between extinction and 

survival for many species. 

In considering exclusions of areas 

originally proposed for designation, we 

evaluated the benefits of designation in 

light of Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 

378 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir 2004). In that 

case, the Ninth Circuit invalidated the 

Service’s regulation defining 

‘‘destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat.’’ In response, on 

December 9, 2004, the Director issued 

guidance to be considered in making 

section 7 adverse modification 

determinations. This critical habitat 

designation does not use the invalidated 

regulation in our consideration of the 

benefits of including areas in this final 

designation. The Service will carefully 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULESER12SE06.003</GPH> ER12SE06.004</GPH>
53590 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 12, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

manage future consultations that 

analyze impacts to designated critical 

habitat, particularly those that appear to 

be resulting in an adverse modification 

determination. Such consultations will 

be reviewed by the Regional Office prior 

to finalizing to ensure that an adequate 

analysis has been conducted that is 

informed by the Director’s guidance. 

On the other hand, to the extent that 

designation of critical habitat provides 

protection, that protection can come at 

significant social and economic cost. In 

addition, the mere administrative 

process of designation of critical habitat 

is expensive, time-consuming, and 

controversial. The current statutory 

framework of critical habitat, combined 

with past judicial interpretations of the 

statute, make critical habitat the subject 

of excessive litigation. As a result, 

critical habitat designations are driven 

by litigation and courts rather than 

biology, and made at a time and under 

a time frame that limits our ability to 

obtain and evaluate the scientific and 

other information required to make the 

designation most meaningful. 

In light of these circumstances, the 

Service believes that additional agency 

discretion would allow our focus to 

return to those actions that provide the 

greatest benefit to the species most in 

need of protection. 

Procedural and Resource Difficulties in 

Designating Critical Habitat 

We have been inundated with 

lawsuits for our failure to designate 

critical habitat, and we face a growing 

number of lawsuits challenging critical 

habitat determinations once they are 

made. These lawsuits have subjected the 

Service to an ever-increasing series of 

court orders and court-approved 

settlement agreements, compliance with 

which now consumes nearly the entire 

listing program budget. This leaves the 

Service with little ability to prioritize its 

activities to direct scarce listing 

resources to the listing program actions 

with the most biologically urgent 

species conservation needs. 

The consequence of the critical 

habitat litigation activity is that limited 

listing funds are used to defend active 

lawsuits, to respond to Notices of Intent 

to sue relative to critical habitat, and to 

comply with the growing number of 

adverse court orders. As a result, listing 

petition responses, the Service’s own 

proposals to list critically imperiled 

species, and final listing determinations 

on existing proposals are all 

significantly delayed. 

The accelerated schedules of courtordered designations have left the 

Service with limited ability to provide 

for public participation or to ensure a 

defect-free rulemaking process before 

making decisions on listing and critical 

habitat proposals, due to the risks 

associated with noncompliance with 

judicially imposed deadlines. This in 

turn fosters a second round of litigation 

in which those who fear adverse 

impacts from critical habitat 

designations challenge those 

designations. The cycle of litigation 

appears endless and is very expensive, 

thus diverting resources from 

conservation actions that may provide 

relatively more benefit to imperiled 

species. 

The costs resulting from the 

designation include legal costs, the cost 

of preparation and publication of the 

designation, the analysis of the 

economic effects and the cost of 

requesting and responding to public 

comment, and in some cases the costs 

of compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 

U.S.C. 4371 et seq.). These costs, which 

are not required for many other 

conservation actions, directly reduce the 

funds available for direct and tangible 

conservation actions. 

Background 

Our intent is to discuss only topics 

directly relevant to the designation of 

critical habitat in this final rule. For 

more information on the Rota bridled 

white-eye, refer to the final listing rule 

published in the Federal Register on 

January 22, 2004 (69 FR 3022). 

Previous Federal Actions 

On September 14, 2005, we published 

a proposed rule to designate critical 

habitat for the Rota bridled white-eye 

(70 FR 54335). The public comment 

period was open for 60 days until 

November 14, 2005. On May 4, 2006, we 

published a notice in the Federal 

Register and issued a press release 

announcing the reopening of the public 

comment period and the availability of 

the draft economic analysis for the 

proposed designation of critical habitat 

for the Rota bridled white-eye (71 FR 

26315). The comment period was open 

for an additional 30 days until June 5, 

2006. For more information on previous 

Federal actions concerning the Rota 

bridled white-eye, refer to the final rule 

listing this species as endangered, 

published in the Federal Register on 

January 22, 2004 (69 FR 3022), and the 

proposed critical habitat rule published 

in the Federal Register on September 

14, 2005 (70 FR 54335). 

Summary of Comments and 

Recommendations 

We requested written comments from 

the public on the proposed designation 

of critical habitat for the Rota bridled 

white-eye that was published on 

September 14, 2005 (70 FR 54335). We 

also contacted appropriate Federal, 

Commonwealth, and local agencies; 

scientific organizations; and other 

interested parties and invited them to 

comment on the proposed rule. 

We received a total of 14 written 

comments during the 2 comment 

periods on the proposal published on 

September 14, 2005 (70 FR 54335), and 

the draft economic analysis published 

on May 4, 2006 (71 FR 26315). These 

included responses from eight 

designated peer reviewers, four 

individuals or organizations (one 

organization provided comments during 

both comment periods), and one from 

the CNMI Division of Fish and Wildlife. 

We did not receive comments from any 

Federal agencies. Ten commenters 

supported the proposed designation, 

two commenters provided information 

and expressed neither opposition nor 

support for the proposed designation, 

and one expressed concern regarding 

the size of the proposed designation. We 

reviewed all comments received for 

substantive issues and new information 

regarding critical habitat for the Rota 

bridled white-eye. Substantive 

comments were grouped into three 

general issues, are addressed in the 

following summary, and were 

incorporated into this final rule as 

appropriate. We did not receive any 

requests for a public hearing. 

Peer Review 

In accordance with our policy 

published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 

34270), we solicited expert opinions 

from 11 knowledgeable individuals with 

scientific expertise that included 

familiarity with the species, the 

geographic region in which the species 

occurs, and conservation biology 

principles. We received responses from 

eight of the peer reviewers. The peer 

reviewers generally concurred with our 

methods and conclusions and provided 

additional information and suggestions 

to improve the final critical habitat rule. 

Peer reviewer comments are addressed 

in the following summary and 

incorporated into the final rule as 

appropriate. 

Comments Related to Life History, 

Habitat Characteristics, and Ecological 

Considerations 

1. Comment: Three peer reviewers 

stated that there is limited evidence to 

support the statement that black drongo 

and rat predation are important threats 

to the Rota bridled white-eye. One peer 

reviewer also stated that there is limited 

evidence to indicate that habitat 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 12, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 53591 

fragmentation is a threat to the Rota 

bridled white-eye. 

Our Response: We agree that the 

available information on the threats to 

the Rota bridled white-eye is limited 

and that there is not strong evidence to 

indicate whether rat and black drongo 

predation and habitat fragmentation are 

important threats to the Rota bridled 

white-eye. However, introduced species 

and habitat fragmentation have both 

been documented to be important 

threats to many species from the islands 

in the Pacific. In the recovery outline 

(USFWS 2004, p. 11) and draft recovery 

plan (USFWS 2006, p. 33–34) for the 

Rota bridled white-eye, we recommend 

that additional research be conducted 

on these potential threats and that 

appropriate management actions be 

undertaken based on the results of this 

research. 

2. Comment: Three peer reviewers 

stated that on-the-ground conservation 

is needed, in addition to critical habitat 

designation, to conserve the Rota 

bridled white-eye. 

Our Response: We agree that on-theground management of the threats and 

resource needs of the species is 

necessary for the long-term conservation 

of the species. Management activities 

are described in the recovery outline 

(USFWS 2004, p. 11) and draft recovery 

plan (USFWS 2006, pp. 39–51) for the 

species. 

Comments Related to Critical Habitat, 

Primary Constituent Elements, and 

Methodology 

3. Comment: One peer reviewer stated 

that the population recovery benchmark 

(16,000 Rota bridled white-eyes) may 

not be achievable because the native 

forest canopy and available acreage have 

decreased. 

Our Response: We agree that the 

quality of Rota bridled white-eye habitat 

has diminished over the last several 

decades and currently may not be 

sufficient to support a population of 

16,000 Rota bridled white-eyes. 

However, the amount of critical habitat 

designated was based on the assumption 

that it could support a population of 

16,000 Rota bridled white-eyes with 

appropriate management activities, such 

as restoration of degraded forest areas 

(see ‘‘Special Management 

Considerations or Protections’’ section 

for details). 

4. Comment: One peer reviewer noted 

that we did not utilize Rota bridled 

white-eye densities reported by 

Engbring et al. (1986, p. 44) to help 

identify the amount of land to designate 

as critical habitat and that some 

unanalyzed survey data collected by the 

CNMI in 1992 and 1993 may also be 

available for estimating white-eye 

densities. 

Our Response: We considered the 

density estimate provided by Engbring 

et al. (1986, p. 44) in the preparation of 

the proposed rule, but during 

development of the final rule, we 

determined that survey work by Fancy 

and Snetsinger (2001, p. 276) and 

Amidon (2000, p. 68) was the best 

available information for this purpose. 

The density estimate calculated by 

Engbring et al. (1986, p. 44) was for a 

large portion of Rota that included a 

wide variety of habitats of varying 

quality. We believe this density estimate 

is too broad and does not provide an 

accurate estimate of the number of Rota 

bridled white-eyes a forested area can 

support if the threats to the species are 

controlled. 

We also reviewed the CNMI reports 

by Lusk (1993, pp. 235–236) and 

Worthington and Taisacan (1994, pp. 

17–18) on Rota bridled white-eye 

research during the 2 years identified by 

the peer reviewer. Descriptions of the 

survey methodology in these two 

reports indicated that surveys for Rota 

bridled white-eyes were conducted 

along two transects. However, Rota 

bridled white-eye densities were not 

calculated along these transects and we 

were unable to obtain density data from 

these surveys. Therefore, we could not 

consider this information in our 

analysis. 

5. Comment: One peer reviewer 

suggested that the designation of critical 

habitat for the Rota bridled white-eye 

and Mariana crow will lead to local 

hostility toward both species and their 

conservation. One commenter suggested 

that there is no basis for the concern 

described in the Draft Economic 

Analysis that designating critical habitat 

for the Rota bridled white-eye might 

result in harm to the species due to 

negative public sentiment. 

Our Response: We acknowledge that, 

despite the Service’s outreach activities, 

considerable apprehension remains 

about the impacts of critical habitat on 

land use on Rota. Nevertheless, without 

documentation that the designation of 

critical habitat would increase the threat 

to the Rota bridled white-eye or Mariana 

crow, we have no basis for changing our 

prudency determination. The basis for 

disclosing negative public sentiment 

and its possible effect on the Rota 

bridled white-eye is presented in 

Section 1.2.3.3 of the Draft Economic 

Analysis (p. 1–7). Public sentiment was 

offered in meetings with various 

agencies, as cited in the Draft Economic 

Analysis, and determined to be 

information for additional consideration 

and appropriately labeled as such. This 

information is not qualitatively or 

quantitatively defined in the economic 

impact section in Section 3. 

6. Comment: One peer reviewer 

suggested that non-forested areas may 

also need to be considered for 

designation due to loss and degradation 

of native forest on the Sabana. 

Our Response: We agree that 

reforestation may be an important tool 

in the conservation of the Rota bridled 

white-eye. However, because these nonforested areas were not occupied by 

Rota bridled white-eye at the time of 

listing, do not contain the primary 

constituent elements, and are not 

essential for the conservation of the 

white-eye, we did not consider these 

areas for designation. 

7. Comment: One peer reviewer 

suggested that additional information be 

provided with Map 1 to explain why 

some areas surrounded by critical 

habitat were not designated. 

Our Response: We only designated 

areas that contain the primary 

constituent elements for the Rota 

bridled white-eye. Many of the large 

areas not designated that lie within the 

outer boundary of the designation are 

composed of open fields or agricultural 

plots that do not contain the primary 

constituent elements needed for the 

survival of the species. 

8. Comment: Two peer reviewers 

stated that the current designation was 

based on the best available information 

but suggested that as additional 

information is obtained about the 

habitat requirements of the Rota bridled 

white-eye it may become necessary to 

modify the designation in the future. 

Our Response: If new information 

becomes available about the habitat 

requirements of the Rota bridled whiteeye which indicates that the designation 

is not appropriate for the conservation 

of this species, we will consider 

amending this critical habitat rule as 

available resources allow. 

9. Comment: Three commenters 

suggested that the forested areas along 

the rivers in the upper reaches of the 

Talakhaya region be added to the 

designation because Rota bridled whiteeyes and their primary constituent 

elements are currently found in these 

areas. 

Our Response: We agree that some of 

the forested areas in the Talakhaya 

region are utilized by Rota bridled 

white-eyes and may contain some of 

their primary constituent elements. 

However, since the first island-wide 

forest bird survey in 1982, Rota bridled 

white-eyes have been recorded 

primarily above 490 feet (ft; 150 meters 

(m)) elevation (Engbring et al. 1986, p. 

77; Amidon 2000, p. 38; Fancy and 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
53592 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 12, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

Snetsinger 2001, p. 278). Therefore, we 

utilized this elevation contour as a 

criterion for delimiting critical habitat 

and listed forests above this elevation 

contour as a primary constituent 

element for this species (see ‘‘Primary 

Constituent Elements’’ for details). The 

majority of the forested areas along the 

rivers in the Talakhaya region are below 

this elevation so they were not 

considered in the designation. We did, 

however, include Talakhaya region 

forested areas above this elevation in the 

proposal and final designation. In 

addition, one of our selection criteria for 

the designation was sufficiently forested 

areas to meet the recovery goal of 16,000 

individuals for the species (see the 

‘‘Criteria Used to Identify Critical 

Habitat’’ section for details). Because 

sufficiently forested areas above 490 ft 

(150 m) elevation (enough to attain the 

recovery goal) were available for the 

designation, we did not include forested 

areas below this elevation contour. 

10. Comment: Two peer reviewers 

and one commenter stated that the 

section of the proposed rule titled 

‘‘Designation of Critical Habitat 

Provides Little Additional Benefit to the 

Species’’ is political, editorializing, and 

out of place in a proposal. 

Our Response: The section referenced 

by the peer reviewers and commenter is 

intended to be a general statement 

regarding our position on the 

designation of critical habitat. As 

discussed in the preamble of this and 

other critical habitat designation rules, 

we believe that, in most cases, 

conservation mechanisms provided 

through section 7, the section 4 recovery 

planning process, the section 9 

protective prohibitions of unauthorized 

take, section 6 funding to the States, the 

section 10 incidental take permit 

process, and cooperative programs with 

private and public landowners provide 

greater incentives and conservation 

benefits than the designation of critical 

habitat. 

11. Comment: One commenter stated 

the Service’s complaints regarding 

accelerated schedules of court-ordered 

designations in the section of the rule 

titled ‘‘Designation of Critical Habitat 

Provides Little Additional Benefit to the 

Species’’ does not apply to the Rota 

bridled white-eye proposal because the 

Service agreed to the timeline in the 

settlement agreement. 

Our Response: As stated above, the 

section referenced by the commenter is 

intended to be a general statement 

regarding our position on the 

designation of critical habitat. For some 

designations, the schedules for 

completing these rules are not 

necessarily accelerated. 

Comments Related to Economic 

Analysis and Other Relevant Impacts 

1. Comment: One commenter stated 

that the draft wrongly attributed costs 

related to restrictions on agricultural 

homestead development to critical 

habitat designation, and that other 

factors are the causes. 

Our Response: The moratorium 

associated with the agricultural 

homestead program described in the 

draft Economic Analysis is a 

moratorium on new agricultural 

homestead applications, not on the 

development of agricultural 

homesteads. A backlog on existing 

applications exists, and there is no 

moratorium on development associated 

with the existing applications. The draft 

Economic Analysis does not assume 

that the existing moratorium on new 

applications is attributable to critical 

habitat designation for the Rota bridled 

white-eye. The analysis does identify a 

percentage of land within the critical 

habitat unit that has agricultural 

homestead development potential, and 

identifies the cost associated with the 

loss of that development potential. To 

estimate a range of costs, we presumed 

that the current moratorium on new 

applications would be lifted because of 

the importance of land to people of 

Northern Mariana Islands descent, and 

the lack of information to suggest that 

the lifting of the moratorium would be 

unlikely. 

2. Comment: Three commenters stated 

that the analysis of lost development 

value of critical habitat land in the draft 

economic analysis does not accurately 

reflect potential development on Rota in 

the next 20 years. 

Our Response: As described in 

Section 3.2.2.3 of the Draft Economic 

Analysis (pp. 3–15), the analysis does 

not presume the potentially impacted 

acres will be developed in the next 20 

years, but assumes that value is lost 

associated with the lost option for 

development. The estimated value of a 

parcel of land implicitly incorporates its 

potential for future development. The 

methods and data used to estimate the 

reduction in land value associated with 

restrictions on development were peer 

reviewed. 

3. Comment: The CNMI Division of 

Fish and Wildlife stated that the 

economic impact of the critical habitat 

designation of the Mariana Crow on 

Rota was far less than that of the Rota 

bridled white-eye, and another 

commenter stated that the draft 

economic analysis incorrectly lumps the 

costs associated with critical habitat 

designation with costs already triggered 

by the listing of the species. 

Our Response: The economic analysis 

estimates the total cost of species 

conservation activities without 

subtracting the impact of pre-existing 

baseline regulations (i.e., the cost 

estimates are fully co-extensive). In 

2001, the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of 

Appeals instructed the Service to 

conduct a full analysis of all of the 

economic impacts of proposed critical 

habitat designation, regardless of 

whether those impacts are attributable 

co-extensively to other causes (New 

Mexico Cattle Growers Ass’n v. USFWS, 

248 F.3d 1277 (10th Cir. 2001)). The 

economic analysis complies with 

direction from the U.S. 10th Circuit 

Court of Appeals. This analysis 

identifies those economic activities 

believed to most likely threaten the Rota 

white-eye and its habitat and, where 

possible, quantifies the economic 

impact to avoid, mitigate, or compensate 

for such threats within the boundaries 

of the critical habitat designation. Due 

to the difficulty in making a credible 

distinction between listing and critical 

habitat effects within critical habitat 

boundaries, this analysis considers all 

future conservation-related impacts to 

be coextensive with the designation. 

4. Comment: One commenter stated 

that the draft economic analysis failed 

to analyze the benefits of critical habitat 

designation. 

Our Response: Section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act requires the Secretary to designate 

critical habitat based on the best 

scientific data available after taking into 

consideration the economic impact, 

impact on national security, and any 

other relevant impact of specifying any 

particular area as critical habitat. The 

Service’s approach for estimating 

economic impacts includes both 

economic efficiency and distributional 

effects. The measurement of economic 

efficiency is based on the concept of 

opportunity costs, which reflect the 

value of goods and services foregone in 

order to comply with the effects of the 

designation (such as lost economic 

opportunity associated with restrictions 

on land use). Where data are available, 

the economic analyses do attempt to 

measure the net economic impact. 

However, no data was found that 

enabled us to measure beneficial 

impacts, nor was such information 

submitted during the public comment 

period. Most of the other benefit 

categories submitted by the commenter 

reflect broader social values, which are 

not the same as economic impacts. 

While the Secretary must consider 

economic and other relevant impacts as 

part of the final decision-making 

process under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, 

the Act explicitly states that it is the 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 12, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 53593 

government’s policy to conserve all 

threatened and endangered species and 

the ecosystems upon which they 

depend. Thus, we believe that explicit 

consideration of broader social values 

for the subspecies and its habitat, 

beyond the more traditionally defined 

economic impacts, is not necessary as 

Congress has already clarified the social 

importance. We note, as a practical 

matter, it is difficult to develop credible 

estimates of such values, because they 

are not readily observed through typical 

market transactions and can only be 

inferred through advanced, tailor-made 

studies that are time consuming and 

expensive to conduct. We currently lack 

both the budget and time needed to 

conduct such research before meeting 

our court-ordered final rule deadline. In 

summary, we believe that society places 

significant value on conserving 

threatened and endangered species and 

the habitats they depend on, but we 

need only to consider whether the 

economic impacts (both positive and 

negative) are significant enough to merit 

exclusion of any particular area without 

causing the species to go extinct. 

Comments From States 

Section 4(i) of the Act states, ‘‘the 

Secretary shall submit to the State 

agency a written justification for her 

failure to adopt regulation consistent 

with the agency’s comments or 

petition.’’ Comments received from the 

CNMI Division of Fish and Wildlife 

regarding the proposal to designate 

critical habitat for the Rota bridled 

white-eye are addressed below. 

1. State Comment: The CNMI Division 

of Fish and Wildlife stated that the 

forests in the As Rosalia area are 

severely degraded and support very few 

Rota bridled white-eyes, and suggested 

that this area be removed from the 

designation. 

Our Response: We agree that the 

forests in the As Rosalia area are 

degraded and likely support low 

numbers of Rota bridled white-eyes. 

However, we estimated that 

approximately 4,000 ac (1,600 ha) of 

forest that contains features essential to 

the conservation of the Rota bridled 

white-eye would be needed to support 

the long-term conservation of the 

species (see the ‘‘Criteria Used to 

Identify Critical Habitat’’ section for 

details). Forests containing essential 

features are primarily limited to the 

Sabana region, which includes the As 

Rosalia area. The As Rosalia area is 

occupied, albeit by low numbers of Rota 

bridled white-eyes (Fancy and 

Snetsinger 2001, p. 276), it still contains 

features that are essential to the 

conservation of the species (e.g., yoga, 

oschal, and kafu in the canopy or 

understory), and it has the potential to 

be improved with appropriate 

management; therefore, we have 

included this area in the final 

designation. 

2. State Comment: The CNMI Division 

of Fish and Wildlife stated that the 

Sabana plateau is primarily grassland 

and agricultural land and does not 

contain Rota bridled white-eyes or good 

habitat for the species. Therefore, they 

recommend that this area be removed 

from the designation. 

Our Response: We agree that some of 

the Sabana plateau is not forested, and 

we did not include these non-forested 

areas in the proposal or in this final 

designation because they do not contain 

the primary constituent elements. We 

also agree that some of the forested areas 

on the Sabana plateau have sustained 

damage caused by typhoons, deer 

browsing, and other factors. However, as 

stated above (see State Comment 1), 

approximately 4,000 ac (1,600 ha) of 

forest that contain features essential to 

the conservation of the Rota bridled 

white-eye would be needed to support 

the long-term conservation of the 

species (see the ‘‘Criteria Used to 

Identify Critical Habitat’’ section for 

details). Forests containing these 

essential features are primarily limited 

to the Sabana region, which includes 

the Sabana plateau. The Sabana plateau 

contains many of the features essential 

for the long-term conservation of the 

Rota bridled white-eye (such as yoga, 

oschal, and kafu in the canopy or 

understory), and with appropriate weed 

and deer control measures we believe 

the forests can be managed to increase 

Rota bridled white-eye numbers. We do 

not agree with the statement that Rota 

bridled white-eyes are not found on the 

Sabana plateau. While the central 

portion of the plateau is currently 

occupied at very low population levels, 

the outer edges of the plateau contain 

high density Rota bridled white-eye 

areas (Fancy and Snetsinger 2001, p. 

276). We did not remove the forested 

areas of the Sabana plateau from the 

final designation because they contain 

documented occurrences of Rota bridled 

white-eyes and their primary 

constituent elements. 

Summary of Changes From Proposed 

Rule 

In developing the final critical habitat 

designation for the Rota bridled whiteeye, we reviewed the comments 

received on our proposed rule and draft 

economic analysis and conducted 

further evaluation of lands included 

under the proposal. Based on our 

review, we have determined that no 

changes to the proposed designation are 

warranted. 

Critical Habitat 

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 

of the Act as—(i) the specific areas 

within the geographical area occupied 

by a species, at the time it is listed in 

accordance with the Act, on which are 

found those physical or biological 

features (I) essential to the conservation 

of the species, and (II) that may require 

special management considerations or 

protection; and (ii) specific areas 

outside the geographical area occupied 

by a species at the time it is listed, upon 

a determination that such areas are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. Conservation, as defined under 

section 3 of the Act, means to use all 

methods and procedures necessary to 

bring any endangered species or 

threatened species to the point at which 

the measures provided pursuant to the 

Act are no longer necessary. Such 

methods and procedures include, but 

are not limited to, all activities 

associated with scientific resources 

management such as research, census, 

law enforcement, habitat acquisition 

and maintenance, propagation, live 

trapping, and transplantation, and, in 

the extraordinary case where population 

pressures within a given ecosystem 

cannot be otherwise relieved, may 

include regulated taking. 

Critical habitat receives protection 

under section 7 of the Act through the 

prohibition against destruction or 

adverse modification of critical habitat 

with regard to actions carried out, 

funded, or authorized by a Federal 

agency. Section 7 requires formal 

consultation on Federal actions that are 

likely to result in an adverse effect to 

critical habitat. The designation of 

critical habitat does not affect land 

ownership or establish a refuge, 

wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other 

conservation area. Such designation 

does not allow government or public 

access to private lands. 

To be included in a critical habitat 

designation, the habitat within the area 

occupied by the species must first have 

features that are essential to the 

conservation of the species. Critical 

habitat designations identify, to the 

extent known using the best scientific 

data available, habitat areas that provide 

essential life cycle needs of the species 

(i.e., areas on which are found the 

primary constituent elements, as 

defined at 50 CFR 424.12(b)). 

Habitat occupied at the time of listing 

may be included in critical habitat only 

if its essential features may require 

special management or protection. In 

addition, when the best available 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
53594 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 12, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

scientific data demonstrate that the 

conservation needs of the species do not 

require additional areas, we will not 

designate critical habitat in areas not 

occupied by the species when it was 

listed. An area currently occupied by 

the species that was not known to be 

occupied at the time of listing will 

likely, but not always, be essential to the 

conservation of the species and, 

therefore, typically included in the 

critical habitat designation. 

The Service’s Policy on Information 

Standards Under the Endangered 

Species Act, published in the Federal 

Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271), 

and Section 515 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106–

554; H.R. 5658) and the associated 

Information Quality Guidelines issued 

by the Service, provide criteria, 

establish procedures, and provide 

guidance to ensure that decisions made 

by the Service represent the best 

scientific data available. They require 

Service biologists, to the extent 

consistent with the Act and with the use 

of the best scientific data available, to 

use primary and original sources of 

information as the basis for 

recommendations to designate critical 

habitat. When determining which areas 

are critical habitat, a primary source of 

information is generally the listing 

package for the species. Additional 

information sources include the 

recovery plan for the species, articles in 

peer-reviewed journals, conservation 

plans developed by States and counties, 

scientific status surveys and studies, 

biological assessments, or other 

unpublished materials and expert 

opinion or personal knowledge. All 

information is used in accordance with 

the provisions of Section 515 of the 

Treasury and General Government 

Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 

(Pub. L. 106–554; H.R. 5658) and the 

associated Information Quality 

Guidelines issued by the Service. 

Section 4 of the Act requires that we 

designate critical habitat on the basis of 

the best scientific data available. Habitat 

is often dynamic, and species may move 

from one area to another over time. 

Furthermore, we recognize that 

designation of critical habitat may not 

include all of the habitat areas that may 

eventually be determined to be 

necessary for the recovery of the 

species. For these reasons, critical 

habitat designations do not signal that 

habitat outside the designation is 

unimportant or may not be required for 

recovery. 

Areas that support populations, but 

are outside the critical habitat 

designation, will continue to be subject 

to conservation actions implemented 

under section 7(a)(1) of the Act and to 

the regulatory protections afforded by 

the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy standard, as 

determined on the basis of the best 

available information at the time of the 

action. Federally funded or permitted 

projects affecting listed species outside 

their designated critical habitat areas 

may still result in jeopardy findings in 

some cases. Similarly, critical habitat 

designations made on the basis of the 

best available information at the time of 

designation will not control the 

direction and substance of future 

recovery plans, habitat conservation 

plans, or other species conservation 

planning efforts if new information 

available to these planning efforts calls 

for a different outcome. 

Primary Constituent Elements 

In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) 

of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 

424.12, in determining which areas to 

designate as critical habitat, we consider 

the physical and biological features 

(primary constituent elements or PCEs) 

that are essential to the conservation of 

the species, and within areas occupied 

by the species at the time of listing, that 

may require special management 

considerations and protection. These 

include, but are not limited to, space for 

individual and population growth and 

for normal behavior; food, water, air, 

light, minerals, or other nutritional or 

physiological requirements; cover or 

shelter; sites for breeding, reproduction, 

and rearing (or development) of 

offspring; and habitats that are protected 

from disturbance or are representative of 

the historical geographical and 

ecological distributions of a species. 

Based on our current knowledge of 

the life history, biology, and ecology of 

the species, we have determined that 

the primary constituent elements 

required by the Rota bridled white-eye 

for the biological needs of foraging, 

sheltering, roosting, and nesting and 

rearing of young are: 

Forest above 490 ft (150 m) in 

elevation containing a midstory and 

canopy layer, high epiphytic plant 

volume (typically 11 percent or greater), 

Elatostema and Procris spp. on the 

ground, and yoga, oschal, faniok, kafu, 

and/or ahgao trees as dominant forest 

components. In addition, the habitat 

should contain specific forest 

components for foraging, nesting, or 

both, as follows: 

(1) Yoga, oschal, faniok, pengua, 

ahgao, amahadyan, avocado, hodda, 

mapunyao, atoto, sosugi, and/or sumaclada trees, and/or piao, in the canopy or 

subcanopy for foraging; or 

(2) Yoga, oschal, faniok, and/or sosugi 

trees 10 to 49 ft (3 to 15 m) tall and 1 

to 24 in (2 to 60 cm) diameter at breast 

height for nesting. 

Because not all life history functions 

require all the primary constituent 

elements, not all critical habitat will 

contain all the primary constituent 

elements. However, the areas designated 

in this rule have been determined to 

contain sufficient primary constituent 

elements to provide for one or more of 

the life history functions of the Rota 

bridled white-eye. For more information 

on the primary constituent elements 

essential to the conservation of the Rota 

bridled white-eye see the proposal to 

designate critical habitat published in 

the Federal Register on September 14, 

2005 (70 FR 54335). 

Criteria Used To Identify Critical 

Habitat 

We considered several factors in 

identifying and selecting lands for 

designation as critical habitat for the 

Rota bridled white-eye. First, we 

assessed the possible recovery goals for 

the species to help determine the 

amount of habitat needed to conserve 

the species. The recovery considerations 

are based on minimum viable 

population information from Reed et al. 

(2003). Reed et al. (2003, p. 27) 

reviewed minimum viable population 

sizes for 102 vertebrate species, 

including one white-eye species, and 

estimated that 7,000 breeding adults had 

a 99 percent likelihood of persisting for 

40 generations. We then used data on 

Japanese white-eyes (Zosterops 

japonicus) (van Riper 2000, p. 10) and 

silvereyes (Zosterops lateralis) (Kikkawa 

and Wilson 1983, p. 189; Catterall et al. 

1989, p. 559) to estimate the lifespan of 

the Rota bridled white-eye and the 

percentage of its population that may be 

breeding in order to apply Reed et al.’s 

findings to the Rota bridled white-eye. 

We used the data on these two more 

closely related white-eye species 

because similar population parameter 

estimates are not available for the Rota 

bridled white-eye. The other species are 

similar to the Rota bridled white-eye in 

size (Kikkawa 1980, p. 441; van Riper 

2000, p. 2; Derrickson 1998), breeding 

biology (Amidon et al. 2004, p. 345), 

and social behavior (Catterall et al. 

1982, p. 405; Amidon 2000, pp. 33–34; 

van Riper 2000 pp. 6–7). Based on the 

information, a potential benchmark for 

recovery of this species would be a 

single population of at least 16,000 Rota 

bridled white-eyes on the island of Rota. 

To determine the approximate quantity 

of habitat that would be occupied by a 

population of this size, we reviewed 

Rota bridled white-eye density estimates 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 12, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 53595 

from 1996 (Fancy and Snetsinger 2001, 

pp. 275–276) and 1999 (Amidon 2000, 

p. 68) surveys. 

The maximum Rota bridled white-eye 

densities recorded by Fancy and 

Snetsinger (2001, p. 276) in 1996, and 

Amidon (2000, p. 68) in 1999, were 

approximately 3 and 4 white-eyes per ac 

(7 and 10 per ha), respectively. The 

higher Rota bridled white-eye densities 

reported by Amidon (2000) are likely a 

result of differing survey methods and 

not an increase in Rota bridled whiteeye densities over the years. The Fancy 

and Snetsinger (2001, p. 276) estimates 

were based on a single set of surveys in 

the Rota bridled white-eye’s range 

involving area searches. The Amidon 

estimates (2000, pp. 14–15) were based 

on multiple point count surveys 

conducted in 1998 and 1999. 

Based on these density estimates, we 

believe that 4 white-eyes per ac (10 per 

ha) is a conservative estimate of the 

number of Rota bridled white-eyes a 

forested area could support if the threats 

to the species were controlled. Utilizing 

this density estimate, we then divided 

the population recovery benchmark 

(16,000 Rota bridled white-eyes; see 

discussion above) by 4 birds per ac (10 

per ha) and estimated that 

approximately 4,000 ac (1,600 ha) of 

forest would be needed to conserve the 

Rota bridled white-eye. This was then 

used as a guideline for selecting how 

much habitat was essential to the Rota 

bridled white-eye for the critical habitat 

designation. 

When selecting areas for designation, 

we first selected all of the forested areas 

(approximately 638 ac (258 ha)) that 

contained high densities of Rota bridled 

white-eyes in 1996 (Fancy and 

Snetsinger 2001, p. 276) and 1999 

(Amidon 2000, pp. 68, 82). These areas 

are primarily limestone forest or 

introduced forest with sosugi trees or 

piao. We then selected low density areas 

that had large numbers of white-eyes in 

1982, 1987, 1989, and 1994, and large 

tracts of mature limestone forest 

identified by Falanruw et al. (1989, pp. 

2–3, 6–8). These areas were prioritized 

because they contain the primary 

constituent elements needed by the 

species and have supported larger 

white-eye populations than other areas 

containing the white-eyes. When 

defining critical habitat boundaries, we 

avoided areas not known to contain 

primary constituent elements essential 

for Rota bridled white-eye conservation, 

such as agricultural lands and other 

developed lands. 

We are designating critical habitat on 

lands that contain the features that are 

essential to the conservation of the Rota 

bridled white-eye. These areas contain 

the primary constituent elements and 

were considered to be occupied at the 

time the species was listed (69 FR 3022; 

January 22, 2004) (Fancy and Snetsinger 

2001, p. 276). A brief discussion of the 

area designated as critical habitat is 

provided in the Critical Habitat 

Designation section below. 

Special Management Considerations or 

Protections 

When designating critical habitat, we 

assess whether the areas determined to 

be occupied at the time of listing and 

containing the primary constituent 

elements may require special 

management considerations or 

protections. As we undertake the 

process of designating critical habitat for 

a species, we first evaluate lands 

defined by the physical and biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species for inclusion in the 

designation pursuant to section 3(5)(A) 

of the Act. Secondly, we evaluate lands 

defined by those features to assess 

whether they may require special 

management considerations or 

protection. 

As stated in the final listing rule (69 

FR 3022; January 22, 2004), the 

available information indicates habitat 

loss and degradation and predation by 

introduced rats (Rattus spp.) and birds 

(black drongos (Dicrurus macrocercus)) 

are threats to the long-term conservation 

of the Rota bridled white-eye. In 

addition, the small population size and 

limited distribution of the species also 

make it vulnerable to extinction from 

random environmental events (e.g., 

typhoons). To address these threats and 

conserve the species, the following 

special management actions may be 

needed: (1) Protection of the remaining 

stands of mature limestone forest from 

clearing and modification; (2) 

restoration of degraded areas; (3) 

invasive plant control; and (4) rat and 

black drongo control. For additional 

information about the threats to the Rota 

bridled white-eye, see the final listing 

rule (69 FR 3022; January 22, 2004). 

Critical Habitat Designation 

We are designating one unit of 

approximately 3,958 ac (1,602 ha) of 

forested land for the Rota bridled whiteeye as critical habitat (see Map 1 in the 

rule portion of this document). This area 

contains forested areas on 3,700 ac 

(1,498 ha) of public and 258 ac (104 ha) 

of private lands along the slopes and top 

of the Sabana plateau. Approximately 

62 percent (2,292 ac; 928 ha) of the 

public land within this proposed 

designation is within the Sabana 

Conservation Area. This unit is 

composed of limestone forest, 

introduced forest, and secondary 

vegetation that together contain the full 

range of primary constituent elements 

needed for long-term conservation of the 

Rota bridled white-eye. This area was 

considered occupied at the time the 

Rota bridled white-eye was listed (69 FR 

3022; January 22, 2004) (Fancy and 

Snetsinger 2001, p. 276) and contains 

the high-density areas identified by 

Fancy and Snetsinger (2001, p. 276); the 

only known nesting areas for the Rota 

bridled white-eye (Pratt 1985, p. 93; 

Lusk and Taisacan 1997, p. 183; 

Amidon 2000, p. 109); and the areas 

where larger numbers of Rota bridled 

white-eyes have been regularly observed 

during surveys since 1982. This unit 

also contains the primary threats to the 

conservation of the Rota bridled whiteeye (introduced rats, black drongos, and 

habitat degradation and loss [Engbring 

et al. 1986, pp. 10–11; Amidon 2000, 

pp. 41–43; Fancy and Snetsinger 2001, 

pp. 278–280]) and requires special 

management (see Special Management 

Considerations or Protections above). 

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation 

Section 7 Consultation 

Section 7 of the Act requires Federal 

agencies, including the Service, to 

ensure that actions they fund, authorize, 

or carry out are not likely to destroy or 

adversely modify critical habitat. In our 

regulations at 50 CFR 402.02, we define 

destruction or adverse modification as 

‘‘a direct or indirect alteration that 

appreciably diminishes the value of 

critical habitat for both the survival and 

recovery of a listed species. Such 

alterations include, but are not limited 

to, alterations adversely modifying any 

of those physical or biological features 

that were the basis for determining the 

habitat to be critical.’’ However, recent 

decisions by the 5th and 9th Circuit 

Court of Appeals have invalidated this 

definition. Pursuant to current national 

policy and the statutory provisions of 

the Act, destruction or adverse 

modification is determined on the basis 

of whether, with implementation of the 

proposed Federal action, the affected 

critical habitat would remain functional 

(or retain the current ability for the 

primary constituent elements to be 

functionally established) to serve the 

intended conservation role for the 

species. 

Section 7(a) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies, including the Service, 

to evaluate their actions with respect to 

any species that is proposed or listed as 

endangered or threatened and with 

respect to its critical habitat, if any is 

proposed or designated. Regulations 

implementing this interagency 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
53596 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 12, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

cooperation provision of the Act are 

codified at 50 CFR part 402. 

Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies to confer with us on 

any action that is likely to jeopardize 

the continued existence of a proposed 

species or result in destruction or 

adverse modification of proposed 

critical habitat. However, once a 

proposed species becomes listed, or 

proposed critical habitat is designated 

as final, the full prohibitions of section 

7(a)(2) apply to any Federal action. The 

primary utility of the conference 

procedures is to maximize the 

opportunity for a Federal agency to 

adequately consider proposed species 

and critical habitat and avoid potential 

delays in implementing their proposed 

action as a result of the section 7(a)(2) 

compliance process if those species are 

listed or the critical habitat is 

designated. 

If a species is listed or critical habitat 

is designated, section 7(a)(2) of the Act 

requires Federal agencies to ensure that 

activities they authorize, fund, or carry 

out are not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of a listed species 

or to destroy or adversely modify its 

critical habitat. If a Federal action may 

affect a listed species or its critical 

habitat, the responsible Federal agency 

(action agency) must enter into 

consultation with us. As a result of this 

consultation, the Service will issue: (1) 

A concurrence letter for Federal actions 

that may affect, but are not likely to 

adversely affect, listed species or critical 

habitat; or (2) a biological opinion for 

Federal actions that may affect, but are 

likely to adversely affect, listed species 

or critical habitat. 

When we issue a biological opinion 

concluding that a project is likely to 

result in jeopardy to a listed species or 

the destruction or adverse modification 

of critical habitat, we also provide 

reasonable and prudent alternatives to 

the project, if any are identifiable. 

‘‘Reasonable and prudent alternatives’’

are defined at 50 CFR 402.02 as 

alternative actions identified during 

consultation that can be implemented in 

a manner consistent with the intended 

purpose of the action, are consistent 

with the scope of the Federal agency’s 

legal authority and jurisdiction, are 

economically and technologically 

feasible, and are actions that the 

Director believes would avoid jeopardy 

to the listed species or destruction or 

adverse modification of critical habitat. 

Reasonable and prudent alternatives can 

vary from slight project modifications to 

extensive redesign or relocation of the 

project. Costs associated with 

implementing a reasonable and prudent 

alternative are similarly variable. 

Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require 

Federal agencies to reinitiate 

consultation on previously reviewed 

actions in instances where a new 

species is listed or critical habitat is 

subsequently designated that may be 

affected and the Federal agency has 

retained discretionary involvement or 

control over the action or such 

discretionary involvement or control is 

authorized by law. Consequently, some 

Federal agencies may request 

reinitiation of consultation with us on 

actions for which formal consultation 

has been completed, if those actions 

may affect subsequently listed species 

or designated critical habitat or 

adversely modify or destroy proposed 

critical habitat. 

Federal activities that may affect the 

Rota bridled white-eye or its designated 

critical habitat will require section 7 

consultation under the Act. Activities 

on non-Federal lands requiring a 

Federal permit (such as a permit under 

section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act from the 

Service) or involving some other Federal 

action (such as funding from the Federal 

Highway Administration, Federal 

Aviation Administration, or the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency) will 

be subject to the section 7 consultation 

process. Federal actions not affecting 

listed species or critical habitat, and 

actions that are not federally funded, 

authorized, or permitted, do not require 

section 7 consultations. 

Application of the Jeopardy and 

Adverse Modification Standards for 

Actions Involving Effects to the Rota 

Bridled White-eye and its Critical 

Habitat 

Jeopardy Standard 

Prior to and following designation of 

critical habitat, the Service has applied 

an analytical framework for Rota bridled 

white-eye jeopardy analyses that relies 

heavily on the importance of the core 

area population to the survival and 

recovery of the Rota bridled white-eye. 

The section 7(a)(2) analysis is focused 

not only on this population but also on 

the habitat conditions necessary to 

support it. 

The jeopardy analysis usually 

expresses the survival and recovery 

needs of the Rota bridled white-eye in 

a qualitative fashion without making 

distinctions between what is necessary 

for survival and what is necessary for 

recovery. Generally, if a proposed 

Federal action is incompatible with the 

viability of the affected core area 

population, inclusive of associated 

habitat conditions, a jeopardy finding 

may be warranted because of the 

relationship of the core area population 

to the survival and recovery of the 

species as a whole. 

Adverse Modification Standard 

The analytical framework described 

in the Director’s December 9, 2004, 

memorandum is used to complete 

section 7(a)(2) analyses for Federal 

actions affecting Rota bridled white-eye 

critical habitat. The key factor related to 

the adverse modification determination 

is whether, with implementation of the 

proposed Federal action, the affected 

critical habitat would remain functional 

(or retain the current ability for the 

primary constituent elements to be 

functionally established) to serve the 

intended conservation role for the 

species. Generally, the conservation role 

of the Rota bridled white-eye critical 

habitat unit is to support a viable core 

area population. 

Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us 

to briefly evaluate and describe in any 

proposed or final regulation that 

designates critical habitat those 

activities involving a Federal action that 

may destroy or adversely modify such 

habitat, or that may be affected by such 

designation. Activities that may destroy 

or adversely modify critical habitat may 

also jeopardize the continued existence 

of the species. 

Activities that may destroy or 

adversely modify critical habitat are 

those that alter the PCEs to an extent 

that the conservation value of critical 

habitat for the Rota bridled white-eye is 

appreciably reduced. Activities that, 

when carried out, funded, or authorized 

by a Federal agency, may affect critical 

habitat and therefore result in 

consultation for the Rota bridled whiteeye include, but are not limited to: 

(1) Actions that would reduce the 

amount of limestone forest above 490 ft 

(150 m) elevation in the Sabana region. 

Such activities could include vegetation 

clearing and fires. These activities could 

eliminate or reduce foraging and 

breeding habitat. 

(2) Actions that would increase the 

fragmentation of limestone forest above 

490 ft (150 m) elevation in the Sabana 

region. Such activities could include 

vegetation clearing and burning. These 

activities could reduce connectivity 

between areas utilized by Rota bridled 

white-eyes for foraging and breeding 

and increase the amount of forest edge 

exposed to the potential impacts of 

typhoons (e.g., tree uprooting and limb 

damage), thereby further reducing the 

availability of breeding and foraging 

habitat. 

(3) Actions that would degrade 

limestone forest above 490 ft (150 m) 

elevation in the Sabana region. Such 

activities could include spreading or 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 12, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 53597 

introducing invasive weed species, such 

as Coccina grandis (scarlet gourd), that 

inhibit the natural regeneration of native 

forest utilized by Rota bridled whiteeyes for breeding and foraging. 

The critical habitat unit contains the 

features essential to the conservation of 

the Rota bridled white-eye. The unit is 

within the geographic range of the 

species, was occupied by the species at 

the time of listing (based on 

observations made within the last 25 

years), and is likely to be used by the 

Rota bridled white-eye. Federal agencies 

are already required to consult with us 

on activities in areas currently occupied 

by the Rota bridled white-eye to ensure 

that their actions do not jeopardize the 

continued existence of the Rota bridled 

white-eye. 

Economic Analysis 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us 

to designate critical habitat on the basis 

of the best scientific information 

available and to consider economic and 

other relevant impacts of designating a 

particular area as critical habitat. We 

may exclude areas from critical habitat 

upon a determination that the benefits 

of such exclusions outweigh the benefits 

of specifying such areas as critical 

habitat. We cannot exclude such areas 

from critical habitat when such 

exclusion will result in the extinction of 

the species concerned. 

Following the publication of the 

proposed critical habitat designation, 

we conducted an economic analysis to 

estimate the potential economic effect of 

the designation. The draft analysis was 

made available for public review on 

May 4, 2006 (71 FR 26315). We accepted 

comments on the draft analysis until 

June 5, 2006. 

The primary purpose of the economic 

analysis is to estimate the potential 

economic impacts associated with the 

designation of critical habitat for the 

Rota bridled white-eye. This 

information is intended to assist the 

Secretary in making decisions about 

whether the benefits of excluding 

particular areas from the designation 

outweigh the benefits of including those 

areas in the designation. The economic 

analysis considers the economic 

efficiency effects that may result from 

the designation, including habitat 

protections that may exist due to the 

listing of the species. It also addresses 

distribution of impacts, including an 

assessment of the potential effects on 

small entities and the energy industry. 

This analysis focuses on the direct 

and indirect costs of the rule. However, 

economic impacts to land use activities 

can exist in the absence of critical 

habitat. These impacts may result from, 

for example, local zoning laws, State 

and natural resource laws, and 

enforceable management plans and best 

management practices applied by other 

State and Federal agencies. Economic 

impacts that result from these types of 

protections are not included in the 

analysis as they are considered to be 

part of the regulatory and policy 

baseline. 

Pre-designation costs include 

conservation activities to protect the 

Rota bridled white-eye and its habitat 

associated with sections 4, 7, and 10 of 

the Act that have accrued since the 

species was listed as endangered on 

January 22, 2004 (69 FR 3022), but prior 

to the designation of critical habitat. 

Total pre-designation costs associated 

with lands designated as critical habitat 

are estimated to be $68,000 in 2005 

dollars. These costs include species and 

habitat research and planning efforts 

associated with a proposed island-wide 

habitat conservation plan. 

Post-designation effects would 

include likely future costs associated 

with protecting the Rota bridled whiteeye and its habitat in the 20-year period 

following the designation of critical 

habitat (effectively 2006 through 2025). 

Costs for this designation are associated 

with public land management, such as 

species and habitat research and 

development of habitat conservation 

plans associated with agricultural 

homesteads, or the loss of development 

value of potential agricultural 

homestead lands that are not developed 

in the critical habitat unit. Three 

alternatives were assessed for 

determining the potential cost of this 

designation. The first alternative was 

the development of an island-wide 

habitat conservation plan. The second 

was the development of a habitat 

conservation plan just for agricultural 

homesteads within the critical habitat 

unit. The third was that no habitat 

conservation plan would be developed, 

and the value of the developable land 

within the critical habitat unit would be 

lost. The future costs for Alternatives 1 

and 2 are similar: Total undiscounted 

costs were estimated to range from 

$1,301,000 to $1,328,000 over the 20- 

year forecast period. Assuming a 7 

percent discount rate, costs for 

Alternatives 1 and 2 were estimated to 

range from a present value of $806,000 

to $830,000 or an annualized value of 

$76,000 to $79,000 over the 20-year 

forecast period. Assuming a 3 percent 

discount rate, total costs for Alternatives 

1 and 2 were estimated to range from a 

present value of $1,034,000 to 

$1,059,000 or an annualized value of 

$69,000 to $71,000 over the forecast 

period. Future undiscounted costs for 

Alternative 3 were estimated to be 

$4,700,000. Assuming a 7 percent 

discount rate, the cost for Alternative 3 

was estimated to be $4,465,000 or an 

annualized value of $421,000 over the 

20-year forecast period. Assuming a 3 

percent discount rate, the cost for 

Alternative 3 was estimated to be 

$4,572,000 or an annualized value of 

$307,000 over the 20-year forecast 

period. 

A copy of the final economic analysis 

with supporting documents is included 

in our administrative record and may be 

obtained by contacting U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Division of 

Endangered Species (see ADDRESSES

section), or by downloading from the 

Internet at http://www.fws.gov/ 

pacificislands. 

Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act 

Our economic analysis indicates an 

overall low cost resulting from the 

designation. However, pursuant to 

section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we must 

consider relevant impacts in addition to 

economic ones. We determined that the 

lands within the designation of critical 

habitat for the Rota bridled white-eye 

are not owned or managed by the 

Department of Defense, there are 

currently no habitat conservation plans 

for the Rota bridled white-eye, and the 

designation does not include any Tribal 

lands or trust resources. We anticipate 

no impact to national security, 

partnerships, or habitat conservation 

plans from this critical habitat 

designation. Based on the best available 

information, including the prepared 

economic analysis, we believe the unit 

contains the features that are essential 

for the conservation of this species. 

Therefore, we have found no areas for 

which the benefits of exclusion 

outweigh the benefits of inclusion, and 

so have not excluded any areas from 

this designation of critical habitat for 

Rota bridled white-eye based on 

economic or other impacts. 

Clarity of the Rule 

Executive Order 12866 requires each 

agency to write regulations and notices 

that are easy to understand. We invite 

your comments on how to make this 

final rule easier to understand, 

including answers to questions such as 

the following: (1) Are the requirements 

in the final rule clearly stated? (2) Does 

the final rule contain technical jargon 

that interferes with the clarity? (3) Does 

the format of the final rule (grouping 

and order of the sections, use of 

headings, paragraphing, and so forth) 

aid or reduce its clarity? (4) Is the 

description of the notice in the 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
53598 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 12, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

the preamble helpful in understanding 

the final rule? (5) What else could we do 

to make this final rule easier to 

understand? 

Send a copy of any comments on how 

we could make this final rule easier to 

understand to: Office of Regulatory 

Affairs, Department of the Interior, 

Room 7229, 1849 C Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20240. You may e-mail 

your comments to this address: 

Exsec@ios.doi.gov. 

Required Determinations 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12866, this document is a significant 

rule in that it may raise novel legal or 

policy issues, but will not have an 

annual effect on the economy of $100 

million or more or affect the economy 

in a material way. Due to the tight 

timeline for publication in the Federal 

Register, the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) has not formally 

reviewed this rule. As explained above, 

we prepared an economic analysis of 

this action, which has assisted us in 

meeting the requirements of E.O. 12866, 

as well as section 4(b)(2) of the Act to 

determine the economic consequences 

of designating the specific areas as 

critical habitat. We also used it to help 

determine whether to exclude any area 

from critical habitat. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.) 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(RFA) (as amended by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996), 

whenever an agency is required to 

publish a notice of rulemaking for any 

proposed or final rule, it must prepare 

and make available for public comment 

a regulatory flexibility analysis that 

describes the effect of the rule on small 

entities (i.e., small businesses, small 

organizations, and small government 

jurisdictions). However, no regulatory 

flexibility analysis is required if the 

head of an agency certifies the rule will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. The SBREFA amended the RFA 

to require Federal agencies to provide a 

statement of factual basis for certifying 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The SBREFA 

also amended the RFA to require a 

certification statement. 

Small entities include small 

organizations, such as independent 

nonprofit organizations; small 

governmental jurisdictions, including 

school boards and city and town 

governments that serve fewer than 

50,000 residents; and small businesses. 

Small businesses include manufacturing 

and mining concerns with fewer than 

500 employees, wholesale trade entities 

with fewer than 100 employees, retail 

and service businesses with less than $5 

million in annual sales, general and 

heavy construction businesses with less 

than $27.5 million in annual business, 

special trade contractors doing less than 

$11.5 million in annual business, and 

agricultural businesses with annual 

sales less than $750,000. To determine 

if potential economic impacts to these 

small entities are significant, we 

consider the types of activities that 

might trigger regulatory impacts under 

this rule, as well as the types of project 

modifications that may result. In 

general, the term ‘‘significant economic 

impact’’ is meant to apply to a typical 

small business firm’s business 

operations. 

To determine if the rule could 

significantly affect a substantial number 

of small entities, we consider the 

number of small entities affected within 

particular types of economic activities 

(e.g., housing development, grazing, oil 

and gas production, timber harvesting). 

We apply the ‘‘substantial number’’ test 

individually to each industry to 

determine if certification is appropriate. 

However, the SBREFA does not 

explicitly define ‘‘substantial number’’

or ‘‘significant economic impact.’’

Consequently, to assess whether a 

‘‘substantial number’’ of small entities is 

affected by this designation, this 

analysis considers the relative number 

of small entities likely to be impacted in 

an area. In some circumstances, 

especially with critical habitat 

designations of limited extent, we may 

aggregate across all industries and 

consider whether the total number of 

small entities affected is substantial. In 

estimating the number of small entities 

potentially affected, we also consider 

whether their activities have any 

Federal involvement. 

Designation of critical habitat only 

affects activities conducted, funded, or 

permitted by Federal agencies. Some 

kinds of activities are unlikely to have 

any Federal involvement and so will not 

be affected by critical habitat 

designation. In areas where the species 

is present, Federal agencies already are 

required to consult with us under 

section 7 of the Act on activities they 

fund, permit, or implement that may 

affect the Rota bridled white-eye. 

Federal agencies also must consult with 

us if their activities may affect critical 

habitat. Designation of critical habitat, 

therefore, could result in an additional 

economic impact on small entities due 

to the requirement to reinitiate 

consultation for ongoing or future 

Federal activities. 

In our draft economic analysis of this 

designation, we evaluated the potential 

economic effects on small business 

entities resulting from the protection of 

the Rota bridled white-eye and its 

habitat related to the listing of the 

species and the proposed designation of 

critical habitat. The estimated effects are 

anticipated to be borne by the CNMI 

government (which includes both the 

Department of Land and Natural 

Resources and Department of Public 

Lands) and the Service. The CNMI 

government has 69,221 constituents and 

is not considered a small entity. 

Based on our experience with 

consultations pursuant to section 7 of 

the Act for all listed species, virtually 

all projects—including those that, in 

their initial proposed form, would result 

in adverse modification determinations 

in section 7 consultations—can be 

implemented successfully with, at most, 

the adoption of reasonable and prudent 

alternatives. These measures, by 

definition, must be economically 

feasible and within the scope of 

authority of the Federal agency involved 

in the consultation. We can only 

describe the general kinds of actions 

that may be identified in future 

reasonable and prudent alternatives. 

These are based on our understanding of 

the needs of the species and the threats 

it faces, as described in the final listing 

rule and this critical habitat designation. 

Within the critical habitat designation, 

the types of Federal actions or 

authorized activities that we have 

identified as potential concerns are: 

(1) Regulation of activities affecting 

waters of the United States by the Corps 

under section 404 of the Clean Water 

Act; 

(2) Regulation of water flows, 

damming, diversion, and channelization 

implemented or licensed by Federal 

agencies; 

(3) Road construction and 

maintenance and right-of-way 

designation funded by the Federal 

Highway Administration, and Federal 

regulation of agricultural activities; 

(4) Hazard mitigation and postdisaster repairs funded by the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency; and 

(5) Activities funded by the 

Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. 

Department of Energy, or any other 

Federal agency. 

It is likely that a developer or other 

project proponent could modify a 

project or take measures to protect the 

Rota bridled white-eye. The kinds of 

actions that may be included if future 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 12, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 53599 

reasonable and prudent alternatives 

become necessary include conservation 

set-asides, management of competing 

nonnative species, restoration of 

degraded habitat, and regular 

monitoring. These are based on our 

understanding of the needs of the 

species and the threats it faces, as 

described in the final listing rule and 

this critical habitat designation. These 

measures are not likely to result in a 

significant economic impact to project 

proponents, because no small 

businesses are involved and most land 

is managed by the CNMI government. 

In summary, we have considered 

whether designation of critical habitat 

would result in a significant economic 

effect on a substantial number of small 

entities. We have determined, for the 

above reasons and based on currently 

available information, that it is not 

likely to affect a substantial number of 

small entities. Federal involvement, and 

thus section 7 consultations, would be 

limited to a subset of the area 

designated. The most likely Federal 

involvement could include Federal 

Highway Administration funding for 

road improvements and Federal 

Emergency Management Agency 

funding for utility and building repair. 

A regulatory flexibility analysis is not 

required. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) 

Under SBREFA, this rule is not a 

major rule. Our detailed assessment of 

the economic effects of this designation 

is described in the economic analysis. 

Based on the effects identified in the 

economic analysis, we believe that this 

rule will not have an annual effect on 

the economy of $100 million or more, 

will not cause a major increase in costs 

or prices for consumers, and will not 

have significant adverse effects on 

competition, employment, investment, 

productivity, innovation, or the ability 

of U.S.-based enterprises to compete 

with foreign-based enterprises. Refer to 

the final economic analysis for a 

discussion of the effects of this 

determination. 

Executive Order 13211 

On May 18, 2001, the President issued 

Executive Order 13211 on regulations 

that significantly affect energy supply, 

distribution, and use. Executive Order 

13211 requires agencies to prepare 

Statements of Energy Effects when 

undertaking certain actions. This final 

rule to designate critical habitat for the 

Rota bridled white-eye is not expected 

to significantly affect energy supplies, 

distribution, or use. Therefore, this 

action is not a significant energy action 

and no Statement of Energy Effects is 

required. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 

U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) 

In accordance with the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et 

seq.), we make the following findings: 

(a) This rule will not produce a 

Federal mandate. In general, a Federal 

mandate is a provision in legislation, 

statute, or regulation that would impose 

an enforceable duty upon State, local, 

Tribal governments, or the private sector 

and includes both ‘‘Federal 

intergovernmental mandates’’ and 

‘‘Federal private sector mandates.’’

These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 

658(5)–(7). ‘‘Federal intergovernmental 

mandate’’ includes a regulation that 

‘‘would impose an enforceable duty 

upon State, local, or tribal governments’’

with two exceptions. It excludes ‘‘a 

condition of federal assistance.’’ It also 

excludes ‘‘a duty arising from 

participation in a voluntary Federal 

program,’’ unless the regulation ‘‘relates 

to a then-existing Federal program 

under which $500,000,000 or more is 

provided annually to State, local, and 

tribal governments under entitlement 

authority,’’ if the provision would 

‘‘increase the stringency of conditions of 

assistance’’ or ‘‘place caps upon, or 

otherwise decrease, the Federal 

Government’s responsibility to provide 

funding’’ and the State, local, or Tribal 

governments ‘‘lack authority’’ to adjust 

accordingly. At the time of enactment, 

these entitlement programs were: 

Medicaid; AFDC work programs; Child 

Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services 

Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation 

State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption 

Assistance, and Independent Living; 

Family Support Welfare Services; and 

Child Support Enforcement. ‘‘Federal 

private sector mandate’’ includes a 

regulation that ‘‘would impose an 

enforceable duty upon the private 

sector, except (i) a condition of Federal 

assistance; or (ii) a duty arising from 

participation in a voluntary Federal 

program.’’

The designation of critical habitat 

does not impose a legally binding duty 

on non-Federal government entities or 

private parties. Under the Act, the only 

regulatory effect is that Federal agencies 

must ensure that their actions do not 

destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat under section 7. While nonFederal entities who receive Federal 

funding, assistance, permits or 

otherwise require approval or 

authorization from a Federal agency for 

an action may be indirectly impacted by 

the designation of critical habitat, the 

legally binding duty to avoid 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat rests squarely on the 

Federal agency. Furthermore, to the 

extent that non-Federal entities are 

indirectly impacted because they 

receive Federal assistance or participate 

in a voluntary Federal aid program, the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would 

not apply; nor would critical habitat 

shift the costs of the large entitlement 

programs listed above on to State 

governments. 

(b) We do not believe that this rule 

will significantly or uniquely affect 

small governments because it will not 

produce a Federal mandate of $100 

million or greater in any year, that is, it 

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act. The designation of critical habitat 

imposes no obligations on State or local 

governments. As such, a Small 

Government Agency Plan is not 

required. 

Federalism 

In accordance with Executive Order 

13132, the rule does not have significant 

Federalism effects. A Federalism 

assessment is not required. In keeping 

with Department of the Interior and 

Department of Commerce policy, we 

requested information from, and 

coordinated development of, this final 

critical habitat designation with 

appropriate resource agencies in the 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 

Islands. The designation of critical 

habitat in areas currently occupied by 

the Rota bridled white-eye may impose 

some additional regulatory restrictions 

to those currently in place, but only 

where there is a Federal action, and, 

therefore, will likely have little 

incremental impact on State and local 

governments and their activities. The 

designation may have some benefit to 

these governments in that the areas that 

contain the features essential to the 

conservation of the species are more 

clearly defined, and the primary 

constituent elements of the habitat 

necessary to the conservation of the 

species are specifically identified. While 

making this definition and 

identification does not alter where and 

what federally sponsored activities may 

occur, it may assist these local 

governments in long-range planning 

(rather than waiting for case-by-case 

section 7 consultations to occur). 

Civil Justice Reform 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12988, the Office of the Solicitor has 

determined that the rule does not 

unduly burden the judicial system and 

meets the requirements of sections 3(a) 

and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We are 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
53600 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 12, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

designating critical habitat in 

accordance with the provisions of the 

Endangered Species Act. This final rule 

uses standard property descriptions and 

identifies the primary constituent 

elements within the designated areas to 

assist the public in understanding the 

habitat needs of the Rota bridled whiteeye. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) 

This rule does not contain any new 

collections of information that require 

approval by OMB under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act. This rule will not 

impose recordkeeping or reporting 

requirements on State or local 

governments, individuals, businesses, or 

organizations. An agency may not 

conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 

required to respond to, a collection of 

information unless it displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

Outside the Tenth Circuit, we do not 

need to prepare environmental analyses 

as defined by NEPA in connection with 

designating critical habitat under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended. We published a notice 

outlining our reasons for this 

determination in the Federal Register 

on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This 

determination has been upheld in the 

Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. 

Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. Ore. 

1995), cert. denied 116 S. Ct. 698 (1996). 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994, 

‘‘Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments’’ (59 FR 22951), Executive 

Order 13175, and the Department of the 

Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we 

readily acknowledge our responsibility 

to communicate meaningfully with 

recognized Federal Tribes on a 

government-to-government basis. We 

have determined that there are no tribal 

lands on the island of Rota. Therefore, 

no Tribal lands were included in the 

designation of critical habitat for the 

Rota bridled white-eye. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

in this rulemaking is available upon 

request from the Field Supervisor, 

Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office 

(see ADDRESSES section). 

Author(s) 

The primary author of this package is 

the Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife 

Office. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Regulation Promulgation 

■ Accordingly, we amend part 17, 

subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth 

below: 

PART 17—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C. 

1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99–

625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted. 

■ 2. In § 17.11(h), revise the entry for 

‘‘White-eye, Rota bridled’’ under 

‘‘BIRDS’’ to read as follows: 

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

Species 

Historic range 

Vertebrate population where endangered or threatened 

Status When 

listed 

Critical 

habitat 

Special 

rules Common name Scientific name 

* * * * * * * 

BIRDS 

* * * * * * * 

White-eye, Rota bridled.Zosterops rotensis .. Western Pacific 

Ocean-U.S.A 

(Commonwealth 

of the Northern 

Mariana Islands).

Entire ...................... E 741 17.95(b) NA 

* * * * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 17.95(b) by adding critical 

habitat for the ‘‘Rota bridled white-eye 

(Zosterops rotensis)’’ under ‘‘BIRDS,’’ in 

the same order in which species are 

presented in § 17.11(h), to read as 

follows: 

§ 17.95 Critical habitat—fish and wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(b) Birds 

* * * * * 

Rota Bridled White-Eye (Zosterops 

rotensis) 

(1) Critical habitat units are depicted 

for Rota, Commonwealth of the 

Northern Mariana Islands, on the map 

below. 

(2) The primary constituent elements 

of critical habitat for the Rota bridled 

white-eye are the habitat components 

that provide forest above 490 feet (ft) 

(150 meters (m)) in elevation containing 

a midstory and canopy layer, high 

epiphytic plant volume (typically 11 

percent or greater), Elatostema and 

Procris spp. on the ground, and 

Elaeocarpus joga (yoga), Hernandia 

labyrinthica (oschal), Merrilliodendron 

megacarpum (faniok), Pandanus 

tectorius (kafu), and/or Premna 

obtusifolia (ahgao) trees as dominant 

forest components for foraging, 

sheltering, roosting, and nesting and 

rearing of young. In addition, the habitat 

should contain the specific forest 

components for foraging, nesting, or 

both, as follows: 

(i) Yoga, oschal, faniok, Macaranga 

thompsonii (pengua), ahgao, Pipturus 

argenteus (amahadyan), Persea 

americana (avocado), Ficus tinctoria 

(hodda), Aglaia mariannensis 

(mapunyao), Eugenia thompsonii 

(atoto), Acacia confusa (sosugi), and/or 

Tarenna sambucina (sumac-lada) trees, 

and/or Bambusa vulgaris (piao, bamboo) 

in the canopy or subcanopy for foraging; 

or 

(ii) Yoga, oschal, faniok, and/or sosugi 

trees 10 to 49 ft (3 to 15 m) tall and 1 

to 24 inches (2 to 60 centimeters) 

diameter at breast height for nesting. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 12, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 53601 

(3) Critical habitat does not include 

manmade structures (such as buildings, 

aqueducts, airports, roads, and other 

paved areas) and the land on which they 

are located existing on the effective date 

of this rule and not containing one or 

more of the primary constituent 

elements. 

Critical Habitat Map Unit 

(4) Data layers defining the mapped 

unit were created on a base of USGS 7.5′ 

quadrangles, and the critical habitat unit 

was then mapped using Universal 

Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates. 

(5) Rota bridled white-eye critical 

habitat, Rota, Commonwealth of the 

Northern Mariana Islands (3,958 ac; 

1,602 ha). 

(i) Unit consists of 346 points with 

following coordinates in UTM Zone 55 

with the units in meters using World 

Geodetic System 1984 (WGS84): 

300742, 1565012, 300809, 1565217, 

300840, 1565285, 300875, 1565341, 

300962, 1565420, 300995, 1565444, 

301061, 1565473, 301135, 1565490, 

301186, 1565494, 301327, 1565491, 

301531, 1565451, 301796, 1565425, 

301905, 1565419, 301958, 1565425, 

302030, 1565456, 302067, 1565466, 

302205, 1565482, 302229, 1565471, 

302272, 1565429, 302310, 1565416, 

302852, 1565346, 302882, 1565343, 

302932, 1565348, 302953, 1565356, 

302986, 1565377, 303007, 1565407, 

303005, 1565510, 302983, 1565616, 

302978, 1565666, 302982, 1565740, 

302990, 1565763, 303005, 1565777, 

303103, 1565824, 303150, 1565828, 

303223, 1565806, 303243, 1565792, 

303284, 1565740, 303303, 1565731, 

303315, 1565733, 303343, 1565752, 

303500, 1565896, 303645, 1565995, 

303813, 1566125, 303903, 1566164, 

304054, 1566243, 304085, 1566255, 

304155, 1566270, 304271, 1566306, 

304326, 1566311, 304388, 1566328, 

304494, 1566336, 304562, 1566352, 

304700, 1566368, 304734, 1566365, 

304760, 1566355, 304791, 1566336, 

304835, 1566299, 304904, 1566293, 

304977, 1566261, 305032, 1566256, 

305110, 1566231, 305131, 1566220, 

305152, 1566197, 305174, 1566158, 

305197, 1566090, 305213, 1566016, 

305244, 1565964, 305317, 1565923, 

305417, 1565815, 305444, 1565800, 

305461, 1565775, 305493, 1565766, 

305608, 1565782, 305678, 1565798, 

305840, 1565858, 305947, 1565890, 

306134, 1565992, 306230, 1566039, 

306271, 1566055, 306365, 1566071, 

306500, 1566077, 306557, 1566089, 

306588, 1566105, 306773, 1566245, 

306819, 1566265, 307118, 1566324, 

307158, 1566325, 307191, 1566320, 

307249, 1566295, 307359, 1566230, 

307407, 1566207, 307778, 1566099, 

307843, 1566062, 307898, 1566047, 

307941, 1566020, 307999, 1566003, 

308109, 1565940, 308162, 1565898, 

308260, 1565834, 308407, 1565674, 

308437, 1565635, 308458, 1565596, 

308529, 1565323, 308544, 1565200, 

308543, 1565150, 308537, 1565112, 

308472, 1564974, 308423, 1564834, 

308409, 1564746, 308394, 1564555, 

308385, 1564519, 308306, 1564339, 

308149, 1563842, 308086, 1563674, 

308065, 1563629, 308013, 1563560, 

308004, 1563528, 307995, 1563514, 

307953, 1563481, 307857, 1563392, 

307835, 1563367, 307826, 1563347, 

307816, 1563286, 307803, 1563028, 

307795, 1562975, 307783, 1562966, 

307725, 1562954, 307691, 1562925, 

307691, 1562911, 307717, 1562869, 

307712, 1562856, 307699, 1562846, 

307656, 1562826, 307555, 1562804, 

307518, 1562768, 307480, 1562756, 

307447, 1562734, 307353, 1562655, 

307323, 1562617, 307307, 1562586, 

307300, 1562465, 307289, 1562432, 

307266, 1562397, 307216, 1562348, 

307176, 1562324, 307120, 1562306, 

307027, 1562297, 307000, 1562286, 

306970, 1562267, 306923, 1562220, 

306885, 1562107, 306868, 1562080, 

306853, 1562074, 306826, 1562082, 

306799, 1562099, 306759, 1562155, 

306731, 1562179, 306698, 1562219, 

306678, 1562233, 306657, 1562234, 

306620, 1562216, 306571, 1562209, 

306513, 1562179, 306481, 1562177, 

306476, 1562191, 306472, 1562272, 

306434, 1562361, 306391, 1562443, 

306373, 1562497, 306222, 1562602, 

306206, 1562602, 306180, 1562585, 

306166, 1562534, 306144, 1562526, 

306121, 1562532, 306080, 1562567, 

306054, 1562574, 305964, 1562570, 

305912, 1562563, 305849, 1562573, 

305808, 1562551, 305733, 1562553, 

305722, 1562561, 305714, 1562595, 

305698, 1562604, 305684, 1562596, 

305672, 1562575, 305662, 1562500, 

305655, 1562483, 305646, 1562484, 

305635, 1562495, 305625, 1562531, 

305615, 1562544, 305588, 1562564, 

305567, 1562567, 305551, 1562561, 

305517, 1562518, 305486, 1562501, 

305461, 1562470, 305453, 1562465, 

305438, 1562464, 305415, 1562480, 

305407, 1562505, 305410, 1562537, 

305422, 1562585, 305421, 1562606, 

305413, 1562613, 305386, 1562616, 

305373, 1562624, 305347, 1562674, 

305328, 1562692, 305291, 1562716, 

305257, 1562722, 305232, 1562721, 

305219, 1562712, 305204, 1562692, 

305189, 1562688, 305160, 1562698, 

305110, 1562731, 305083, 1562735, 

305065, 1562733, 305037, 1562717, 

305006, 1562668, 304981, 1562647, 

304958, 1562638, 304924, 1562635, 

304890, 1562598, 304856, 1562597, 

304819, 1562606, 304787, 1562629, 

304737, 1562632, 304719, 1562648, 

304811, 1562704, 304812, 1562719, 

304793, 1562738, 304770, 1562750, 

304721, 1562752, 304653, 1562789, 

304603, 1562797, 304550, 1562793, 

304520, 1562769, 304504, 1562762, 

304464, 1562761, 304432, 1562770, 

304403, 1562772, 304355, 1562769, 

304332, 1562760, 304325, 1562751, 

304323, 1562731, 304327, 1562719, 

304343, 1562698, 304348, 1562679, 

304349, 1562583, 304356, 1562513, 

304351, 1562493, 304270, 1562434, 

304223, 1562419, 304206, 1562376, 

304186, 1562353, 304126, 1562326, 

304055, 1562283, 303995, 1562276, 

303953, 1562281, 303890, 1562321, 

303864, 1562358, 303830, 1562380, 

303825, 1562390, 303827, 1562400, 

303835, 1562405, 303860, 1562408, 

303865, 1562417, 303863, 1562438, 

303826, 1562510, 303811, 1562567, 

303783, 1562600, 303768, 1562605, 

303669, 1562602, 303597, 1562589, 

303549, 1562599, 303490, 1562569, 

303399, 1562504, 303334, 1562463, 

303311, 1562441, 303239, 1562346, 

303088, 1562240, 303073, 1562218, 

303048, 1562210, 303010, 1562207, 

302957, 1562190, 302925, 1562192, 

302908, 1562205, 302903, 1562216, 

302906, 1562269, 302895, 1562348, 

302883, 1562361, 302835, 1562375, 

302814, 1562391, 302792, 1562456, 

302766, 1562563, 302712, 1562684, 

302665, 1562811, 302645, 1562883, 

302595, 1563127, 302565, 1563228, 

302535, 1563275, 302436, 1563381, 

302380, 1563478, 302354, 1563506, 

302333, 1563519, 302254, 1563541, 

302185, 1563577, 302125, 1563592, 

302080, 1563615, 302015, 1563692, 

301971, 1563777, 301951, 1563806, 

301890, 1563864, 301836, 1563908, 

301750, 1563946, 301723, 1563952, 

301650, 1563960, 301611, 1563981, 

301594, 1564000, 301585, 1564023, 

301584, 1564061, 301593, 1564112, 

301585, 1564135, 301474, 1564241, 

301450, 1564254, 301413, 1564259, 

301352, 1564251, 301311, 1564237, 

301295, 1564239, 301214, 1564294, 

301096, 1564399, 300966, 1564483, 

300945, 1564505, 300922, 1564541, 

300892, 1564569, 300859, 1564634, 

300808, 1564710, 300804, 1564729, 

300806, 1564769, 300802, 1564795, 

300740, 1564944, 300737, 1564975. 

(ii) Not including 13 areas: 

(A) Bounded by the following 13 

points (2 ac; 1 ha): 301307, 1564935; 

301288, 1564908; 301291, 1564898; 

301301, 1564889; 301354, 1564890; 

301410, 1564877; 301424, 1564879; 

301460, 1564899; 301472, 1564922; 

301468, 1564941; 301452, 1564950; 

301382, 1564933; 301335, 1564939. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
53602 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 12, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

(B) Bounded by the following 48 

points (39 ac; 16 ha): 301471, 1564593; 

301458, 1564567; 301463, 1564557; 

301550, 1564532; 301578, 1564506; 

301598, 1564501; 301639, 1564501; 

301668, 1564487; 301760, 1564465; 

301797, 1564449; 301803, 1564442; 

301802, 1564433; 301789, 1564410; 

301787, 1564397; 301798, 1564388; 

301812, 1564387; 301824, 1564395; 

301844, 1564426; 301857, 1564432; 

301920, 1564441; 301980, 1564460; 

302041, 1564447; 302081, 1564449; 

302122, 1564459; 302169, 1564479; 

302242, 1564523; 302338, 1564565; 

302377, 1564592; 302400, 1564618; 

302417, 1564647; 302427, 1564679; 

302426, 1564699; 302418, 1564724; 

302403, 1564740; 302363, 1564757; 

302332, 1564757; 302269, 1564741; 

302146, 1564681; 302059, 1564655; 

302017, 1564655; 301908, 1564682; 

301866, 1564674; 301831, 1564660; 

301713, 1564582; 301660, 1564566; 

301613, 1564561; 301554, 1564564; 

301516, 1564572. 

(C) Bounded by the following 47 

points (58 ac; 23 ha): 301566, 1564945: 

301569, 1564920; 301578, 1564904; 

301624, 1564888; 301649, 1564857; 

301660, 1564850; 301679, 1564850; 

301706, 1564888; 301726, 1564892; 

301744, 1564883; 301754, 1564864; 

301759, 1564836; 301777, 1564825; 

301824, 1564810; 301963, 1564798; 

301986, 1564807; 302011, 1564845; 

302030, 1564859; 302105, 1564881; 

302150, 1564885; 302309, 1564864; 

302407, 1564883; 302422, 1564895; 

302444, 1564926; 302462, 1564938; 

302486, 1564939; 302550, 1564927; 

302646, 1564928; 302700, 1564940; 

302712, 1564951; 302716, 1564964; 

302713, 1564975; 302696, 1564984; 

302614, 1564988; 302602, 1564995; 

302592, 1565021; 302584, 1565102; 

302572, 1565118; 302490, 1565138; 

302195, 1565151; 302135, 1565146; 

302088, 1565135; 301955, 1565082; 

301722, 1565014; 301662, 1564986; 

301608, 1564971. 

(D) Bounded by the following 61 

points (91 ac; 37 ha): 302150, 1564098; 

302172, 1564039; 302208, 1564002; 

302245, 1563984; 302303, 1563975; 

302364, 1563928; 302390, 1563916; 

302429, 1563913; 302494, 1563933; 

302545, 1563926; 302576, 1563927; 

302602, 1563941; 302629, 1563977; 

302641, 1563982; 302686, 1563948; 

302701, 1563945; 302715, 1563951; 

302735, 1563975; 302766, 1564034; 

302757, 1564078; 302769, 1564119; 

302759, 1564172; 302762, 1564208; 

302776, 1564221; 302822, 1564235; 

302842, 1564246; 302867, 1564270; 

302899, 1564315; 302905, 1564345; 

302891, 1564382; 302917, 1564467; 

302950, 1564548; 303012, 1564647; 

303033, 1564728; 303060, 1564765; 

303059, 1564787; 303044, 1564799; 

303024, 1564795; 302973, 1564763; 

302909, 1564709; 302872, 1564700; 

302839, 1564684; 302751, 1564683; 

302736, 1564669; 302709, 1564620; 

302682, 1564601; 302570, 1564563; 

302481, 1564539; 302458, 1564528; 

302444, 1564509; 302424, 1564435; 

302401, 1564389; 302386, 1564348; 

302375, 1564301; 302378, 1564265; 

302374, 1564251; 302287, 1564174; 

302272, 1564172; 302224, 1564179; 

302187, 1564171; 302176, 1564161. 

(E) Bounded by the following 319 

points (677 ac; 274 ha): 302943, 

1564065; 302923, 1564061; 302919, 

1564054; 302936, 1564038; 302987, 

1564019; 303009, 1563991; 303047, 

1563971; 303060, 1563954; 303062, 

1563939; 303054, 1563879; 303060, 

1563827; 303074, 1563808; 303107, 

1563796; 303113, 1563780; 303110, 

1563765; 303090, 1563727; 303109, 

1563690; 303085, 1563639; 303085, 

1563600; 303092, 1563584; 303116, 

1563562; 303132, 1563539; 303131, 

1563504; 303193, 1563466; 303207, 

1563465; 303249, 1563476; 303272, 

1563471; 303303, 1563452; 303334, 

1563412; 303350, 1563400; 303360, 

1563399; 303390, 1563413; 303410, 

1563410; 303416, 1563402; 303410, 

1563386; 303415, 1563373; 303455, 

1563344; 303466, 1563282; 303479, 

1563248; 303497, 1563232; 303553, 

1563212; 303560, 1563195; 303565, 

1563150; 303572, 1563128; 303595, 

1563106; 303623, 1563095; 303655, 

1563097; 303684, 1563125; 303721, 

1563132; 303734, 1563152; 303740, 

1563192; 303780, 1563201; 303789, 

1563208; 303775, 1563236; 303772, 

1563257; 303803, 1563373; 303799, 

1563391; 303773, 1563433; 303765, 

1563441; 303742, 1563447; 303671, 

1563435; 303653, 1563441; 303652, 

1563453; 303675, 1563474; 303807, 

1563534; 303869, 1563577; 303897, 

1563608; 303953, 1563714; 303979, 

1563736; 304071, 1563770; 304155, 

1563793; 304249, 1563795; 304335, 

1563782; 304405, 1563794; 304429, 

1563789; 304479, 1563751; 304493, 

1563746; 304582, 1563737; 304624, 

1563741; 304690, 1563727; 304750, 

1563734; 304786, 1563719; 304794, 

1563708; 304794, 1563686; 304765, 

1563636; 304758, 1563605; 304723, 

1563588; 304708, 1563573; 304683, 

1563490; 304667, 1563465; 304657, 

1563459; 304641, 1563459; 304611, 

1563483; 304586, 1563482; 304570, 

1563497; 304531, 1563517; 304489, 

1563530; 304474, 1563529; 304461, 

1563512; 304434, 1563423; 304413, 

1563389; 304385, 1563357; 304367, 

1563345; 304338, 1563334; 304314, 

1563311; 304244, 1563308; 304171, 

1563273; 304107, 1563257; 304013, 

1563250; 303998, 1563253; 303964, 

1563283; 303940, 1563294; 303926, 

1563349; 303874, 1563345; 303858, 

1563339; 303850, 1563329; 303844, 

1563275; 303852, 1563237; 303892, 

1563228; 303950, 1563198; 303968, 

1563194; 303990, 1563158; 304018, 

1563160; 304049, 1563155; 304099, 

1563163; 304201, 1563127; 304213, 

1563109; 304216, 1563048; 304223, 

1563035; 304234, 1563028; 304252, 

1563031; 304314, 1563067; 304321, 

1563065; 304324, 1563051; 304332, 

1563043; 304394, 1563024; 304397, 

1563008; 304383, 1562960; 304388, 

1562898; 304391, 1562885; 304406, 

1562879; 304436, 1562896; 304481, 

1562945; 304494, 1562947; 304563, 

1562939; 304607, 1562972; 304674, 

1563009; 304740, 1563024; 304799, 

1563053; 304847, 1563054; 304864, 

1563059; 304873, 1563073; 304875, 

1563091; 304856, 1563155; 304857, 

1563163; 304877, 1563174; 304911, 

1563180; 304931, 1563177; 304955, 

1563165; 304966, 1563164; 305029, 

1563211; 305036, 1563224; 305037, 

1563241; 305026, 1563279; 305044, 

1563311; 305043, 1563342; 305006, 

1563380; 304967, 1563439; 304948, 

1563446; 304902, 1563445; 304892, 

1563451; 304895, 1563457; 304926, 

1563472; 304937, 1563482; 304942, 

1563501; 304936, 1563514; 304918, 

1563519; 304883, 1563494; 304868, 

1563502; 304862, 1563511; 304865, 

1563525; 304899, 1563563; 304894, 

1563570; 304855, 1563591; 304847, 

1563606; 304876, 1563674; 304887, 

1563732; 304894, 1563743; 304911, 

1563750; 304920, 1563748; 304943, 

1563727; 304977, 1563752; 305046, 

1563746; 305062, 1563751; 305081, 

1563784; 305100, 1563805; 305149, 

1563831; 305164, 1563844; 305205, 

1563919; 305255, 1563967; 305269, 

1563987; 305269, 1564034; 305279, 

1564060; 305293, 1564075; 305325, 

1564089; 305336, 1564100; 305325, 

1564120; 305311, 1564131; 305291, 

1564139; 305280, 1564149; 305266, 

1564195; 305254, 1564212; 305201, 

1564236; 305185, 1564253; 305176, 

1564277; 305180, 1564335; 305176, 

1564354; 305166, 1564368; 305130, 

1564386; 305107, 1564406; 305061, 

1564482; 304984, 1564553; 304979, 

1564566; 304988, 1564594; 304985, 

1564605; 304954, 1564615; 304930, 

1564637; 304852, 1564669; 304771, 

1564722; 304744, 1564766; 304716, 

1564763; 304681, 1564794; 304673, 

1564810; 304669, 1564832; 304689, 

1564912; 304677, 1564981; 304665, 

1564999; 304629, 1565015; 304614, 

1565043; 304600, 1565052; 304583, 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 12, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 53603 

1565047; 304575, 1565037; 304569, 

1565014; 304570, 1564995; 304579, 

1564967; 304607, 1564940; 304613, 

1564924; 304604, 1564909; 304581, 

1564899; 304558, 1564896; 304503, 

1564900; 304444, 1564919; 304385, 

1564919; 304348, 1564928; 304331, 

1564937; 304326, 1564948; 304338, 

1565014; 304332, 1565017; 304322, 

1565011; 304288, 1564957; 304280, 

1564975; 304262, 1564978; 304255, 

1564985; 304253, 1565027; 304242, 

1565034; 304228, 1565035; 304220, 

1565029; 304215, 1565012; 304207, 

1565004; 304173, 1565015; 304109, 

1565006; 304103, 1564998; 304090, 

1564952; 304080, 1564937; 304053, 

1564920; 303995, 1564904; 303967, 

1564847; 303956, 1564836; 303943, 

1564836; 303926, 1564850; 303913, 

1564855; 303887, 1564852; 303868, 

1564842; 303857, 1564820; 303859, 

1564799; 303876, 1564791; 303945, 

1564781; 303949, 1564777; 303946, 

1564767; 303933, 1564756; 303912, 

1564752; 303868, 1564759; 303849, 

1564756; 303771, 1564713; 303710, 

1564691; 303655, 1564659; 303564, 

1564631; 303553, 1564633; 303546, 

1564643; 303521, 1564743; 303499, 

1564757; 303480, 1564756; 303454, 

1564736; 303441, 1564711; 303404, 

1564670; 303398, 1564657; 303436, 

1564543; 303438, 1564509; 303429, 

1564479; 303393, 1564423; 303296, 

1564316; 303282, 1564278; 303250, 

1564261; 303236, 1564193; 303175, 

1564150; 303082, 1564137; 303062, 

1564125; 303052, 1564107; 303036, 

1564092. 

(F) Bounded by the following 26 

points (20 ac; 8 ha): 304256, 1565414; 

304308, 1565357; 304346, 1565330; 

304472, 1565298; 304590, 1565251; 

304620, 1565250; 304645, 1565261; 

304690, 1565255; 304727, 1565280; 

304777, 1565289; 304783, 1565297; 

304763, 1565363; 304744, 1565464; 

304735, 1565486; 304715, 1565507; 

304686, 1565508; 304660, 1565521; 

304578, 1565501; 304541, 1565485; 

304509, 1565451; 304503, 1565402; 

304498, 1565394; 304485, 1565388; 

304457, 1565388; 304410, 1565414; 

304382, 1565421. 

(G) Bounded by the following 35 

points (11 ac; 4 ha): 305091, 1563607; 

305046, 1563577; 305022, 1563553; 

305015, 1563522; 305001, 1563499; 

305002, 1563487; 305012, 1563476; 

305061, 1563454; 305086, 1563459; 

305114, 1563484; 305141, 1563495; 

305168, 1563525; 305195, 1563534; 

305247, 1563543; 305243, 1563575; 

305278, 1563639; 305274, 1563687; 

305262, 1563722; 305263, 1563729; 

305291, 1563736; 305355, 1563721; 

305372, 1563721; 305382, 1563732; 

305381, 1563761; 305368, 1563775; 

305332, 1563784; 305308, 1563782; 

305274, 1563768; 305234, 1563743; 

305202, 1563707; 305158, 1563671; 

305150, 1563657; 305149, 1563633; 

305132, 1563611; 305115, 1563602. 

(H) Bounded by the following 18 

points (9 ac; 4 ha):305348, 1565123; 

305320, 1565080; 305322, 1565051; 

305361, 1565002; 305416, 1564959; 

305431, 1564953; 305452, 1564953; 

305503, 1564970; 305537, 1564975; 

305554, 1564987; 305570, 1565010; 

305577, 1565037; 305570, 1565071; 

305550, 1565102; 305523, 1565121; 

305499, 1565129; 305412, 1565142; 

305390, 1565140. 

(I) Bounded by the following 96 

points (52 ac, 21 ha):305681, 1564571; 

305654, 1564580; 305620, 1564578; 

305565, 1564595; 305547, 1564592; 

305537, 1564571; 305532, 1564484; 

305527, 1564469; 305511, 1564467; 

305502, 1564474; 305486, 1564499; 

305467, 1564500; 305456, 1564489; 

305453, 1564478; 305455, 1564431; 

305458, 1564418; 305469, 1564405; 

305527, 1564420; 305567, 1564424; 

305612, 1564419; 305641, 1564401; 

305646, 1564382; 305644, 1564358; 

305620, 1564264; 305626, 1564238; 

305640, 1564232; 305731, 1564234; 

305750, 1564230; 305757, 1564225; 

305745, 1564207; 305722, 1564193; 

305699, 1564192; 305645, 1564203; 

305623, 1564195; 305619, 1564181; 

305622, 1564158; 305646, 1564097; 

305677, 1564083; 305781, 1564061; 

305789, 1564055; 305793, 1564024; 

305819, 1563988; 305881, 1563974; 

305897, 1563964; 305938, 1563897; 

305946, 1563858; 305951, 1563774; 

305948, 1563696; 305939, 1563637; 

305922, 1563609; 305861, 1563583; 

305831, 1563543; 305806, 1563520; 

305798, 1563498; 305837, 1563315; 

305862, 1563291; 305893, 1563286; 

305902, 1563291; 305907, 1563301; 

305906, 1563358; 305950, 1563453; 

305953, 1563477; 305949, 1563508; 

305954, 1563523; 305960, 1563526; 

305994, 1563522; 306046, 1563531; 

306057, 1563540; 306063, 1563555; 

306110, 1563573; 306118, 1563592; 

306118, 1563606; 306105, 1563642; 

306071, 1563662; 306059, 1563682; 

306062, 1563709; 306080, 1563772; 

306077, 1563819; 306064, 1563889; 

306006, 1564047; 306002, 1564117; 

305990, 1564133; 305961, 1564145; 

305848, 1564153; 305822, 1564158; 

305803, 1564170; 305793, 1564191; 

305793, 1564205; 305832, 1564256; 

305838, 1564283; 305835, 1564313; 

305821, 1564340; 305807, 1564356; 

305712, 1564414; 305673, 1564451; 

305665, 1564483. 

(J) Bounded by the following 134 

points (92 ac; 37 ha):306267, 1565331; 

306353, 1565325; 306341, 1565326; 

306400, 1565325; 306433, 1565329; 

306453, 1565341; 306484, 1565382; 

306514, 1565388; 306559, 1565384; 

306598, 1565356; 306621, 1565346; 

306716, 1565329; 306720, 1565333; 

306720, 1565374; 306729, 1565422; 

306716, 1565443; 306684, 1565448; 

306681, 1565467; 306688, 1565481; 

306699, 1565487; 306755, 1565496; 

306816, 1565485; 306955, 1565429; 

307014, 1565397; 307111, 1565330; 

307119, 1565340; 307118, 1565350; 

307055, 1565408; 307034, 1565438; 

307017, 1565445; 307005, 1565460; 

306968, 1565468; 306955, 1565488; 

306957, 1565495; 306969, 1565498; 

307025, 1565488; 307029, 1565496; 

307026, 1565526; 307050, 1565540; 

307066, 1565542; 307204, 1565460; 

307258, 1565412; 307269, 1565394; 

307276, 1565368; 307288, 1565356; 

307369, 1565327; 307451, 1565259; 

307509, 1565229; 307537, 1565210; 

307570, 1565178; 307610, 1565126; 

307746, 1565004; 307839, 1564896; 

307872, 1564877; 307878, 1564878; 

307882, 1564884; 307884, 1564905; 

307873, 1564932; 307783, 1565058; 

307734, 1565112; 307580, 1565259; 

307319, 1565473; 307080, 1565610; 

307035, 1565624; 307014, 1565621; 

306976, 1565592; 306934, 1565568; 

306887, 1565525; 306868, 1565520; 

306815, 1565528; 306718, 1565559; 

306626, 1565562; 306510, 1565585; 

306399, 1565586; 306337, 1565579; 

306331, 1565589; 306345, 1565658; 

306354, 1565736; 306349, 1565806; 

306352, 1565829; 306383, 1565896; 

306399, 1565902; 306440, 1565898; 

306438, 1565928; 306417, 1565948; 

306391, 1565949; 306277, 1565911; 

306256, 1565896; 306205, 1565844; 

306173, 1565823; 306154, 1565817; 

306115, 1565820; 306094, 1565817; 

306042, 1565781; 305989, 1565708; 

305972, 1565692; 305953, 1565683; 

305910, 1565671; 305870, 1565667; 

305844, 1565673; 305795, 1565705; 

305766, 1565717; 305719, 1565718; 

305693, 1565710; 305684, 1565703; 

305674, 1565679; 305677, 1565641; 

305689, 1565625; 305724, 1565609; 

305766, 1565605; 305890, 1565626; 

305937, 1565602; 305969, 1565601; 

305988, 1565595; 306002, 1565572; 

305991, 1565555; 305968, 1565549; 

305920, 1565551; 305909, 1565543; 

305911, 1565530; 305918, 1565520; 

305951, 1565499; 305972, 1565493; 

306026, 1565498; 306076, 1565493; 

306107, 1565505; 306133, 1565507; 

306178, 1565494; 306219, 1565475; 

306231, 1565463; 306221, 1565427; 

306232, 1565386; 306235, 1565356; 

306242, 1565346. 

(K) Bounded by the following 207 

points (355 ac, 144 ha):305824, 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
53604 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 12, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

1565279; 305789, 1565258; 305784, 

1565251; 305785, 1565239; 305801, 

1565217; 305929, 1565095; 305932, 

1565086; 305918, 1565072; 305912, 

1565059; 305919, 1565045; 306024, 

1564981; 306114, 1564950; 306143, 

1564935; 306189, 1564892; 306228, 

1564832; 306234, 1564811; 306232, 

1564774; 306229, 1564764; 306218, 

1564755; 306172, 1564745; 306107, 

1564754; 306095, 1564751; 306119, 

1564647; 306140, 1564643; 306179, 

1564618; 306271, 1564573; 306302, 

1564551; 306326, 1564524; 306369, 

1564511; 306391, 1564451; 306411, 

1564417; 306416, 1564385; 306451, 

1564361; 306476, 1564320; 306512, 

1564285; 306520, 1564269; 306525, 

1564238; 306571, 1564226; 306588, 

1564168; 306658, 1564143; 306684, 

1564127; 306701, 1564108; 306706, 

1564092; 306702, 1564075; 306686, 

1564051; 306674, 1564042; 306639, 

1564039; 306558, 1564052; 306546, 

1564039; 306554, 1564023; 306591, 

1564006; 306708, 1563983; 306772, 

1563964; 306791, 1563953; 306807, 

1563932; 306831, 1563941; 306861, 

1563968; 306910, 1563986; 306925, 

1563998; 306936, 1564022; 306933, 

1564035; 306884, 1564066; 306859, 

1564062; 306794, 1564101; 306774, 

1564120; 306763, 1564146; 306750, 

1564158; 306777, 1564193; 306784, 

1564210; 306782, 1564217; 306757, 

1564222; 306745, 1564235; 306741, 

1564248; 306773, 1564278; 306794, 

1564357; 306816, 1564376; 306835, 

1564377; 306852, 1564364; 306910, 

1564341; 306916, 1564308; 306925, 

1564297; 307000, 1564277; 307031, 

1564262; 307039, 1564252; 307050, 

1564208; 307116, 1564160; 307174, 

1564088; 307185, 1564080; 307219, 

1564074; 307238, 1564065; 307248, 

1564043; 307255, 1564008; 307253, 

1563934; 307259, 1563908; 307274, 

1563879; 307331, 1563809; 307374, 

1563769; 307448, 1563710; 307474, 

1563696; 307493, 1563692; 307505, 

1563698; 307521, 1563719; 307540, 

1563768; 307549, 1563778; 307559, 

1563772; 307590, 1563724; 307608, 

1563710; 307626, 1563711; 307655, 

1563727; 307685, 1563724; 307698, 

1563711; 307703, 1563696; 307696, 

1563628; 307702, 1563589; 307723, 

1563542; 307734, 1563528; 307744, 

1563523; 307756, 1563524; 307765, 

1563534; 307774, 1563582; 307787, 

1563600; 307825, 1563608; 307844, 

1563604; 307852, 1563596; 307861, 

1563558; 307867, 1563553; 307889, 

1563564; 307923, 1563593; 307927, 

1563604; 307921, 1563627; 307936, 

1563675; 307930, 1563733; 307920, 

1563742; 307883, 1563736; 307879, 

1563783; 307884, 1563800; 307893, 

1563814; 307944, 1563854; 307971, 

1563870; 307982, 1563901; 307992, 

1563990; 307991, 1564149; 307988, 

1564195; 307974, 1564273; 307965, 

1564280; 307951, 1564281; 307936, 

1564279; 307930, 1564273; 307920, 

1564120; 307913, 1564102; 307888, 

1564066; 307881, 1564043; 307884, 

1564018; 307901, 1563976; 307896, 

1563936; 307882, 1563914; 307855, 

1563892; 307833, 1563882; 307738, 

1563862; 307724, 1563851; 307698, 

1563804; 307679, 1563790; 307668, 

1563794; 307660, 1563807; 307651, 

1563877; 307626, 1563911; 307620, 

1563912; 307613, 1563901; 307620, 

1563870; 307614, 1563851; 307589, 

1563831; 307560, 1563832; 307551, 

1563859; 307524, 1564171; 307536, 

1564245; 307536, 1564274; 307529, 

1564301; 307479, 1564419; 307468, 

1564503; 307434, 1564587; 307418, 

1564611; 307388, 1564640; 307359, 

1564686; 307320, 1564721; 307306, 

1564740; 307271, 1564752; 307259, 

1564762; 307248, 1564802; 307235, 

1564826; 307155, 1564929; 307101, 

1565031; 306941, 1565211; 306880, 

1565237; 306617, 1565317; 306574, 

1565313; 306447, 1565277; 306389, 

1565255; 306296, 1565255; 306259, 

1565250; 306194, 1565223; 306169, 

1565231; 306155, 1565256; 306145, 

1565262; 306028, 1565253; 305991, 

1565246; 305927, 1565246; 305867, 

1565253. 

(L) Bounded by the following 107 

points (81 ac, 33 ha):306372, 1562797; 

306403, 1562764; 306427, 1562755; 

306453, 1562754; 306508, 1562763; 

306586, 1562785; 306716, 1562834; 

306746, 1562833; 306800, 1562809; 

306806, 1562794; 306805, 1562779; 

306797, 1562766; 306785, 1562758; 

306715, 1562738; 306706, 1562725; 

306708, 1562711; 306724, 1562696; 

306753, 1562687; 306769, 1562689; 

306785, 1562702; 306796, 1562704; 

306807, 1562695; 306827, 1562660; 

306836, 1562654; 306883, 1562662; 

306923, 1562677; 306933, 1562691; 

306933, 1562707; 306939, 1562720; 

306971, 1562743; 306951, 1562767; 

306947, 1562793; 306958, 1562864; 

306987, 1562890; 306977, 1562913; 

306976, 1562986; 306970, 1563033; 

306978, 1563053; 307007, 1563079; 

307014, 1563093; 306993, 1563114; 

306991, 1563142; 307005, 1563172; 

307041, 1563196; 307061, 1563224; 

307109, 1563376; 307115, 1563433; 

307101, 1563555; 307090, 1563605; 

307081, 1563625; 307041, 1563678; 

306975, 1563692; 306968, 1563704; 

306961, 1563741; 306940, 1563760; 

306895, 1563780; 306846, 1563792; 

306781, 1563803; 306764, 1563798; 

306762, 1563787; 306773, 1563735; 

306750, 1563589; 306754, 1563583; 

306775, 1563588; 306787, 1563583; 

306803, 1563565; 306805, 1563550; 

306795, 1563527; 306784, 1563519; 

306758, 1563521; 306724, 1563550; 

306718, 1563548; 306714, 1563525; 

306726, 1563496; 306757, 1563475; 

306774, 1563453; 306785, 1563420; 

306786, 1563371; 306775, 1563350; 

306757, 1563337; 306692, 1563316; 

306669, 1563300; 306622, 1563226; 

306605, 1563190; 306604, 1563169; 

306612, 1563144; 306622, 1563134; 

306639, 1563129; 306654, 1563136; 

306676, 1563170; 306707, 1563193; 

306752, 1563216; 306766, 1563218; 

306780, 1563215; 306800, 1563165; 

306808, 1563115; 306774, 1562987; 

306764, 1562973; 306739, 1562961; 

306723, 1562946; 306693, 1562893; 

306677, 1562877; 306629, 1562869; 

306539, 1562836; 306441, 1562823; 

306394, 1562826; 306382, 1562817. 

(M) Bounded by the following 69 

points (47 ac, 30 ha):306858, 1566129; 

306891, 1566009; 306917, 1565936; 

306929, 1565916; 306982, 1565882; 

307028, 1565864; 307063, 1565860; 

307180, 1565888; 307248, 1565881; 

307286, 1565897; 307298, 1565886; 

307308, 1565851; 307318, 1565838; 

307332, 1565837; 307358, 1565846; 

307377, 1565842; 307505, 1565779; 

307601, 1565717; 307612, 1565701; 

307601, 1565695; 307534, 1565713; 

307503, 1565714; 307484, 1565702; 

307479, 1565684; 307498, 1565657; 

307547, 1565628; 307571, 1565607; 

307606, 1565538; 307618, 1565489; 

307628, 1565475; 307745, 1565409; 

307789, 1565409; 307829, 1565429; 

307844, 1565447; 307857, 1565486; 

307858, 1565512; 307852, 1565527; 

307805, 1565571; 307794, 1565595; 

307797, 1565619; 307825, 1565662; 

307834, 1565689; 307808, 1565748; 

307802, 1565778; 307813, 1565781; 

307892, 1565745; 307958, 1565725; 

307992, 1565724; 308008, 1565734; 

308007, 1565752; 307998, 1565762; 

307875, 1565825; 307834, 1565866; 

307814, 1565879; 307743, 1565910; 

307628, 1565928; 307491, 1565976; 

307455, 1565998; 307428, 1566032; 

307412, 1566044; 307254, 1566105; 

307143, 1566130; 307118, 1566145; 

307054, 1566200; 307032, 1566199; 

306993, 1566178; 306951, 1566179; 

306896, 1566171; 306871, 1566153. 

(iii) Note: Map 1 of the critical habitat 

for Rota bridled white-eye follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 12, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 53605 

* * * * * 

Dated: September 5, 2006. 

David M. Verhey, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and 

Wildlife and Parks. 

[FR Doc. 06–7583 Filed 9–11–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 665 

[Docket No. 060606149–6234–02; I.D. 

052506A] 

RIN 0648–AT95 

Fisheries in the Western Pacific; 

Omnibus Amendment for the 

Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish 

Fisheries, Crustacean Fisheries, and 

Precious Coral Fisheries 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this final rule to 

amend three fishery management plans 

(FMPs) to include fisheries and waters 

around the Commonwealth of the 

Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) and 

Pacific Remote Island Areas (PRIA). 

These amendments affect United States 

domestic fisheries that offload or 

operate in Federal waters around the 

CNMI and the PRIA. These amendments 

establish new permitting and reporting 

requirements for vessel operators 

targeting bottomfish species around the 

PRIA to improve understanding of the 

ecology of these species and the 

activities and harvests of the vessel 

operators that target them. They also 

establish new permitting and reporting 

requirements for vessel operators 

targeting crustacean species and 

precious corals around the CNMI and 

PRIA. 

DATES: This final rule is effective 

October 12, 2006, except for 

amendments to §§ 665.14, 665.41, and 

665.61, which require approval by the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act (PRA). When OMB approval is 

received, the effective date will be 

announced in the Federal Register. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of the FMP 

amendments and Environmental 

Assessment (EA) may be obtained from 

Kitty M. Simonds, Executive Director, 

Western Pacific Fishery Management 

Council (WPFMC), 1164 Bishop Street, 

Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813, or from 

the web site www.wpcouncil.org. 

Written comments regarding the 

burden-hour estimates or other aspects 

of the collection-of-information 

requirements contained in this rule may 

be submitted to William L. Robinson, 

Regional Administrator, Pacific Islands 

Region (PIR), NMFS, 1601 Kapiolani 

Blvd. 1110, Honolulu, HI 96814, or to 

David Rostker, OMB, by e-mail 

DavidlRostker@omb.eop.gov, or by fax 

to 202–395–7285. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert Harman, NMFS PIR, 808–944–

2271. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Electronic Access 

This Federal Register document is 

also accessible via the Internet at the 

web site of the Office of the Federal 

Register: www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/ 

index.html. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULESER12SE06.000</GPH>